Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the British Waterways Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read for the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the last Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the present session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the last Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Higher Education

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to encourage universities and other institutes of higher education to accept candidates with qualifications other than A-levels.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): The Government have successfully sought to increase and widen participation in higher education. A range of entry routes is now available including GCE A-levels and AS examinations, advanced general national vocational

qualifications and their precursors and access courses. The Government encourage higher education institutions to give all candidates for admission equal consideration, whatever their entry route.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend accept that while sixth formers now have more choice of examinations than ever before for entry into higher education, universities still press for A-levels? Does he agree that in the United States, where I studied, in France, in Germany and in Japan, people who want to go to university are not forced at the age of 15 or 16 to concentrate on just two or three subjects? Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be advantageous to people aged 15 and 16 if they were able to study a far broader range of subjects?

Mr. Boswell: I am interested in the comments of my hon. Friend, but I do not think that the position is quite as he states it. For example, about 10 per cent. of entrants to degree courses hold the B Tech qualification alone, and entries to engineering courses include 20 per cent. of students who have come from so-called non-conventional routes. We do not control the universities or their admission policies, although we can issue encouragement to them and we have played our part by developing high-quality vocational and access pathways as alternatives to the A-level route.

Mr. Rooker: What actions are the Government taking in respect of professional institutions that are required to validate and accredit degrees from universities and to accept the quality of the output of degrees, as, in the past year, one institution removed its accreditation from three universities for an engineering course—not because of the quality of output of graduates but because of the qualifications that the students attained before going to university? That issue must be tackled by Ministers from the other side by seeking to put pressure on professional institutions to accept quality of output whatever the input.

Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman raises a characteristically thoughtful point and we are certainly in consultation with the Engineering Council and the providers to look at that problem.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Have not A-levels become not so much a gold standard as a golden calf? Does my right hon. Friend accept that for our cleverest young people A-levels represent an absurdly narrow educational experience while for those less than the cleverest struggling for two years to secure, say, a D or an E grade is like stumbling around in an academic tunnel? Will my right hon. Friend continue to encourage schools and colleges to find better ways to combine breadth with rigour?

Mr. Boswell: The issue is to get all players—not just higher education institutions but employers, parents, teacher and students—to look for appropriate courses and pathways for the students involved. I agree that for some people who embark on A-level courses it may be much better to take part in one of the high-level vocational courses now on offer. I am delighted that such courses are now accepted and practised by some 80,000 people on the general national vocational qualification route. That provides an important pathway to the future that will involve at least a quarter of our young people in three years' time.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Actions speak louder than words. Have not the Government decisions ensured that whatever qualifications our young people obtain in their examinations in the coming year, opportunities for access to higher education have been reduced by Government funding cuts and all our students will find it tougher to get into higher education next year than they have this year?

Mr. Boswell: I was about to, and I still will, welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Labour Front Bench, but he will have to do better than that. British higher education has the largest graduate output as a percentage of young people in Europe. It has the highest graduate participation we have ever had in this country, and that percentage participation will be sustained on the back of the most generous settlement achieved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the public expenditure survey for the coming year.

Assisted Places

Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils benefit from the assisted places scheme.

The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): In the academic year 1992–93, the latest year for which information is complete, 28,674 pupils held assisted places in England. I am not responsible for Wales.

Mr. Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that among those 28,000 pupils are 234 boys at Haberdashers' Aske's school in my constituency? Is he aware how deeply the parents of those boys appreciate the educational opportunity offered by those places, which they could not otherwise afford and which could be filled many times over by full fee-paying parents? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scheme should continue and should not be denied, as Opposition Members would have it?

Mr. Patten: Haberdashers' Aske's is a fine school with high standards and I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents on having such a school. The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats want to abolish the assisted places scheme. They also want to abolish grammar schools, performance tables, charitable relief for public schools and, above all else, grant-maintained schools, where today half a million children are being educated. The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats simply want to abolish excellence.

Mr. Steinberg: Will the Secretary of State explain why he thinks that the Government should subsidise private education from state funds when the state is strapped for resources in the first place? Is it not just a way of putting state money into private education, as the results achieved by children are no better than they would have achieved in the state sector?

Mr. Patten: There speaks the authentic neanderthal voice of the National Union of Teachers. After the public expenditure settlement a couple of weeks ago, I find the hon. Gentleman's remarks extraordinary. It is important, particularly in areas where there is little choice, for the Government to ensure that children and their parents have a choice. That is why we are committed to the assisted places scheme and will maintain and expand it according to the plans that I have already announced.

Mr. Dunn: Was not the assisted places scheme introduced over 12 years ago against the direct wishes of the vested interests represented on the Opposition Benches? For children from disadvantaged families in our inner cities it was the best opportunity for a decent education that they could ever have or hope for. Will my right hon. Friend continue to expand the scheme in as many ways as he can achieve?

Mr. Patten: I want to ensure that every hon. Member is aware that it is the Government's policy to ensure that every child has as good a start in life as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who went to a grammar school and was educated at Oxford university. If the assisted places scheme helps others to achieve the same opportunities as the hon. Member for Bolsover, we want to make it available for everybody.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Madam Speaker: No. 3—Mr. Banks.

Stratford School

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he intends to take in the light of the examination results at Stratford grant-maintained school.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): It is for the governors of the school to take whatever steps are necessary to improve the school's academic performance.

Mr. Banks: I was tempted to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Is the Minister aware that before Stratford school opted out, its exam results were above average in the London borough of Newham, and that since it achieved grant-maintained status it has been below average? The Office for Standards in Education has moved in to inspect it because it is perceived to have failed. Under the legislation, there is no provision for an education association to be imposed to replace those governors. What does the Minister intend to do about Stratford school? Will he simply throw more money at it? Is he aware that the school is touting for pupils in the area? It is a total mess as a result of interference on ideological grounds by his wretched Government playing party politics with the educational needs of the kids in my constituency.

Mr. Squire: Even at a time of charitable Christmas good will to the hon. Gentleman, I find comments about political interference from such a source rather rich. He is right to say that we are awaiting the result of the inspection report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will wish to study that report before determining the next steps to take. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that the school's examination results in the past year were disappointing, but it would be unusual if we were to take excessive action on the basis of one year's examination results—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I adjudge that there is now complete agreement across the Floor of the Chamber about the excellence of schools and how we should be raising standards. I entirely welcome that. Let there be no doubt that if the hon. Gentleman's question is motivated by a desire to raise standards at that school, he will find the


same desire on this side of the Chamber. Powers are available, in extremis, to the Secretary of State to cope with the problems that the hon. Gentleman has identified.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have applied for grant-maintained status; and what measures he is taking to speed up the process.

Mr. Patten: One thousand and thirty schools have voted to apply for grant-maintained status, and there are more schools with ballots pending.
Measures in the Education Act 1992 to speed up and ease the transition to grant-maintained status include the need for only one governors' resolution before holding a ballot and a shorter timetable for the subsequent stages of acquiring grant-maintained status.
From 1 January 1994, every LEA-maintained school will be required to consider grant-maintained status and report to parents on the outcome of its consideration every year in future.

Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that the 10 schools at the bottom of the league table are not grant maintained but controlled by Labour authorities? Will he also confirm that the lot opposite do not like competition at any level because when they compete every four years they get stuffed out of sight, and they will continue to get stuffed out of sight while they have rag, tag and bobtail policies?

Mr. Patten: That was a characteristically sub fusc question from my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). I confirm that what he said is absolutely right, both about the schools at the bottom of the performance table—we must try to help them or we shall have to close them down—and about the local education authorities. The 10 worst performing schools are controlled by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that in the war years, when people had to fight to get to those places, my parents were proud that I won a county minor scholarship to Tupton Hall? I was surrounded by people who had been sent there because they had paid. Is the Minister aware that when I went to Oxford I went to the working-class Ruskin college? Is he also aware that, unlike him and many others on the Government Front Bench, I did not go to public schools and, unlike him, was not educated beyond my intelligence?

Mr. Patten: As a matter of fact, neither did I. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should look up the facts and see what sort of school I went to. It was then a grammar school, of which I was proud. It is now a comprehensive school and I hope that it will shortly go grant maintained. I am proud of the education that I got there, as the hon. Gentleman is doubtless proud of the very good education that he got at Tupton Hall grammar school. I am sure that his parents were rightly proud of him, although if they were here I doubt whether they would be proud of his question this afternoon, which showed all the intellectual coherence of Mr. Blobby.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend, in his customary warm-hearted way, extend his congratulations

to Geoff Lennox, who was first chairman and then director of education on left-wing Derbyshire county council, and who dedicated his career to fighting the opting out of schools and the contracting out of services? He has proved that it is never too late to learn—by joining a private sector company dedicated to selling contracted-out services to opted-out schools.

Mr. Patten: Doubtless the experience of working with Derbyshire finally persuaded Mr. Lennox to show common sense. All over the country there is a good and fruitful partnership between state and private sectors. I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituent on his wise choice of future career.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Is it not true that, despite all the Government's efforts to push schools into grant-maintained status, only a small percentage of schools in England and Wales are grant maintained? Is it not also true that, in the past three months, two thirds fewer schools have voted for GM status than in the same three months last year, and that twice as many are now voting not to opt out? Is it not further true that the vast majority of schools have seen through the con trick of GM status and want to remain with local education authorities which are, in the main, Labour controlled? Would it not make more sense to divert the excessive resources in GM schools to all state schools?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is not as well informed as he should be. Since the beginning of the balloting on grant-maintained status, month after month—including the past three months—eight out of every 10 schools have voted yes, and only two against. The hon. Gentleman should concentrate on the considerable educational benefits of grant-maintained schools. The published results in the performance tables last month showed their excellent performance, and I predict that by the time of the next election—and Labour's fifth defeat in a row—about two thirds of the secondary schools in this country will be grant maintained. This will be an irreversible change.

Mr. Pawsey: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning local authorities that oppose grant-maintained status not for educational reasons but for political reasons? Will he join me in condemning authorities that do not put the children first and whose first responsibility is to themselves and their own jobs and empires? Will my right hon. Friend go on to say what action he intends to take to promote GM status, not just through governing bodies but through the parents who want it?

Mr. Patten: I think that parents and others are only too well involved. After all, there are the proud parents of the 500,000 children being educated in GM schools. An enraged group of governors and teachers from Lincolnshire came to see me this morning to complain about the attitude of Lincolnshire local education authority to GM schools. They complained in particular about the new and cruel form of 11-plus on which the LEA is insisting—causing maximum stress for the children and having to be taken on Saturday mornings instead of during the school week so that the children being tested for grammar school entry in Lincolnshire do not even notice. New authorities formed by new types of political control in counties such as Lincolnshire should think carefully before putting children under stress in this way.

Swimming

Ms Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what measures have been taken to increase the number of children leaving primary schools who can swim.

Mr. Robin Squire: The national curriculum for physical education requires that all pupils should by the age of 11 be able to swim unaided at least 25 metres and demonstrate an understanding of water safety. This requirement becomes effective from August next year.

Ms Hoey: Is the Minister aware that there is great concern not just in the Amateur Swimming Association but among all people who care about young people being able to swim and a fear that there may be some going back on that commitment in Sir Ron Dearing's review of the national curriculum? Will the Minister give a commitment that swimming will remain part of the national curriculum and say what concrete measures will be taken to ensure that all primary schools can afford to get their children to swimming pools, which causes great difficulties in inner-city areas? What resources will be put in and will he ensure that they will be available when needed?

Mr. Squire: The hon. Lady is right to emphasise the importance of swimming. That is why it features in the national curriculum, as it has done since 1992, along with other physical education requirements. There has been significant funding of the national curriculum in recent years. We believe that it should be possible for the minority of schools that do not currently have access to swimming pools to find additional funding from their existing resources.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the tragedies in Britain is that small children still die from drowning? It is extremely encouraging that almost 70 per cent. of primary schools now have swimming pools on site and more than 80 per cent. provide swimming training.

Mr. Squire: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] It sounds as though my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) has struck a chord. I endorse what he said and remind Opposition Members, who may have overlooked the report, that in late 1989 a survey showed that more than 80 per cent. of primary schools had access to swimming facilities of one sort or another. I concur with my hon. Friend's views on the importance of the subject, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey).

Tertiary Education

Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give the global amounts paid for tertiary education in England and Wales for the past three years for eligible students from the European Union; and if he will give the figures for individual countries.

Mr. Boswell: In 1991–92, total spending by the Department on higher education was in excess of £5,000 million. The amount attributable to students from other European Community member states studying in England and Wales is estimated on the basis of average unit costs at approximately £105 million. The numbers from individual member states are given in Department for

Education statistical bulletins available in the Library. British nationals studying elsewhere in the European Community enjoy reciprocal rights.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Do they enjoy reciprocal arrangements in all other European Community countries? Is it not a fact that we carry a fair part of the European budget and also subsidise the education of students from some of those countries to the detriment of our own budgetary requirements?

Mr. Boswell: I can confirm that we are obliged, under the Gravier judgment of 1985 by the European Court of Justice, to provide nationals of other European Community member states with access to higher education on the same terms as nationals of the host state. The United Kingdom has implemented that judgment at some cost to its Exchequer. Other EC member states have an obligation to comply with it.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: While welcoming the fact that European students find our institutions so excellent that they wish to come here, may I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that they do not do so at the expense of our mature students? Will he consider the case of one of my constituents, who is over 50 and has been made redundant? He had a 14-year-old child, and he and his wife worked out that they could just, by the skin of their teeth, afford to go to university. When they heard that there was to be a cut of 10 per cent. in the grant and the husband was not eligible for a loan, they realised that that would put an end to his career. Could mature students who are over 50 be included in the loan system now that the grants are to be cut?

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend ingeniously introduces an additional issue related to the student support package. It has never been our practice to extend the loan scheme to the over-50s, on the ground that they have a comparatively short career ahead of them to repay their loans. However, I note the point that my hon. Friend made. From the student numbers that we have been able to put through our system and from the fast expansion in the number of mature students—about 150 per cent. in the past eight years—I can assure my hon. Friend that there is ample access to higher education in Britain for Britain's mature and other students, as well as those that we take from other European Community countries.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Rather than moaning about the number of foreign students coming to British institutions, should we not encourage our young people to study in institutions in other countries, particularly Community countries? Is not one barrier to that process the fact that we still teach languages in our schools so incompetently that many young people do not feel able to take advantage of such educational facilities? What steps do the Government intend to take to improve that vital part of our young people's education?

Mr. Boswell: It is rather interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman attacking teachers for their incompetence in delivering modern language teaching. I have not heard much of that in the past. The Government have introduced a requirement under the national curriculum for the teaching of a modern foreign language. We are actively exploring with our European partners the possibility of changes in the higher education programmes of the Community—for example, the Lingua programme—for


the purpose of exploring the objective that we share, which is to encourage a proper, reciprocal, two-way flow of students. That involves Europeans wishing to study in the United Kingdom and equally our students wishing to study in European institutions.

School Buses (Seat Belts)

Mr. Roger Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to advise local education authorities to ensure that children travelling on school buses are wearing seat belts.

Mr. Boswell: In 1991, the Department endorsed a report by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents on school transport safety and arranged for its distribution to all LEAs and schools. The report included a code of good practice, which recommends that children should always wear belts where fitted on school buses and minibuses.

Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend's advice currently extends only to those buses already fitted with seat belts, does he think that it should be extended further? Does he acknowledge the force of the BUSC campaign, which began in my constituency? Will he advise LEAs to restrict contracts for bus operators to those that guarantee that every one of their buses will be fitted with seat belts and that children will be made to wear them?

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend should be aware that it is for LEAs to decide their own policies in these matters. He should also be aware that a high proportion of school buses and coaches—indeed, coaches generally—are not currently fitted with seat belts. In addition, the overall requirements of the construction and use of motor vehicles are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Nevertheless, I shall certainly listen to what BUSC has to say and reflect on it in the light of recent events.

Mr. Battle: Is the Minister aware that only last week there was a tragic accident in Leeds involving a school bus that was taking the children of St. Michaels school on a day trip? The common practice of having three children to two seats was in operation on that bus. Will the Department urgently issue a code of guidance to schools on that practice? Some of us think that three children to two seats is a budget-saving measure rather than a measure to ensure the safety of our children.

Mr. Boswell: About 850,000 of our children either travel on school buses or receive other help with school transport and, sadly, accidents happen from time to time. They are of very different natures and we consider all the circumstances surrounding them.
The working party that prepared the RoSPA report on school transport safety found no evidence that the three-to-two concession had caused any accidents. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary, perhaps he will bring it to my attention.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many primary schools have achieved grant-maintained status.

Mr. Robin Squire: Some 182 primary schools are now grant maintained or self-governing. A further 93 schools have been approved for self-governing status and we look forward to welcoming them to the sector in January and April next year. There has been a fivefold increase in the number of self-governing primary schools operating since last year's general election and the number continues to grow.

Mr. Gill: Does my hon. Friend agree that if parents genuinely want education to cease being used as a political football they would do well to opt for grant-maintained status? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm that those schools that have taken grant-maintained status enjoy better motivation of both teachers and pupils? By voting for grant-maintained status, parents would reap a very handsome dividend.

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is right on every point. A report of the independent inspectorate, Ofsted, earlier this year highlighted improved teacher morale and pupil attendance in grant-maintained schools, and recent exam results show that, comparing comprehensives with comprehensives, grant-maintained schools have significantly better results than local education authority schools.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Why do not Ministers come clean about the trend away from, not towards, grant-maintained schools? Why does not the Minister confirm that only the other day in his constituency a school voted against grant-maintained status; that, as was said earlier, the number of ballots taking place is going down and not up; that the number of no votes is going up and not down; and that parents have now rumbled the fact that, as Stratford shows, grant-maintained status provides neither a better education nor a better way for Ministers to deal with any problems that exist? Ministers should come clean and say that parents have seen what Ministers are still blind to—grant-maintained status does not guarantee education opportunity.

Mr. Squire: Any suggestion that Ministers should come clean from the party that runs Tower Hamlets is a bit rich. As to the hon. Gentleman's comments on individual grant-maintained schools, or non-grant-maintained schools in the case of one vote in my constituency, the words "straws" and "clutching" come to mind. The underlying position remains that, month in, month out, a significant majority of voters vote yes. One's heart goes out at times to parents and governors who are struggling against the organised opposition of Opposition Members and their parties. When they finally have the chance to vote, they vote for freedom, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said.

Dame Angela Rumbold: Will my hon. Friend reassure parents and some teachers in primary schools in my constituency that the malevolent operation of Labour-controlled Merton council to prevent some primary schools from opting out will be controlled in some way or another?

Mr. Squire: I immediately assure my right hon. Friend that, from 1 January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have enhanced powers, in particular to tackle abuses that might occur in the balloting procedure and to cover information going to parents when they vote, which he will not hesitate to use in the appropriate circumstances.

Mr. Enright: If grant-maintained status is so attractive, why will not the Government allow schools to vote to opt out of grant-maintained status?

Mr. Squire: That is an entirely theoretical question. In all my journeys around the country visiting grant-maintained schools and talking to their heads I have not found one head who would even consider the option of returning to local education authority control.

Testing

Mr. Milligan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps are being taken to remove unnecessary bureaucracy in the testing arrangements under the national curriculum following the publication of the Dearing report.

Mr. Patten: We have accepted the Dearing report in full. Testing and marking time for the tests has been halved and there will far less form filling for teachers. The 1994 tests will be much slimmer, but they will remain as fair and as demanding as possible.

Mr. Milligan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that in my constituency, as elsewhere in the country, there was genuine concern among responsible teachers about the complexity of the original tests, but is he also aware that those same teachers are now delighted that the tests are being slimmed down and will be properly piloted? Will he ensure that teachers continue to be properly consulted and that he brooks no opposition from trade unions, some of which were opposed to any testing at all?

Mr. Patten: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. He is right about the useful consultations on testing that have gone on and will continue. He will be aware, as I am, that in some counties, including, I believe, Hampshire, it was the local education authority that decided to put complicated tick lists, as they are known in the trade, into schools, which made tasks unnecessarily complicated. They were never laid down by the Government. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, in its handling of its responsibilities since 1 October, has been a model of efficiency. No teacher, deputy head teacher, head teacher or governor could possibly complain that they have not had promptly all the material that they need.

Primary School Standards

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the progress of his measures to improve standards in primary schools.

Mr. Patten: The national curriculum and testing continue to secure higher standards in primary schools. That is confirmed in the first annual report published by Professor Sutherland, Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools last week, and in a report published by Ofsted today on testing. Both of those highlight the clear improvements brought about by present educational policies. But there is still room for improvement and we are continuing to work to raise standards in all our schools and to encourage higher-quality teaching for all our children at the level that the best already achieve.

Mr. Martin: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most sensible people want to be assured that children in our

primary schools are properly taught to read and write and to grasp the basic principles of arithmetic? In what specific ways do Government reforms carry these vital objectives forward?

Mr. Patten: They do so in two important ways: by the introduction of the national curriculum and by the introduction of regular testing. In addition, as report after report from the independent inspectorate, Ofsted, shows, teacher expectations need to be as high as possible. In the best of our 20,000 primary schools in England—and England has many good primary schools—teacher expectations are extremely high. All the academic evidence points to the need for enhanced teacher expectation. Children enjoy a challenge and the greater the challenge, the better they perform.

Mr. Litherland: One way to improve primary education is to give adequate funding for proper repairs to schools. Does the Minister accept that it is totally unfair to ask teachers to teach our children in the deplorable conditions that are experienced in inner-city Manchester?

Mr. Patten: I do not want to stir up yet another local education authority, but I have to say that the way in which Manchester local education authority has conducted its repair programme over the years is not necessarily a paragon of virtue to hold up to metropolitan authorities. Adequate funds have flowed to Manchester over the years; the question is why they have not been properly used.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the fact that standards in primary schools, as in all types of schools, greatly depend on the quality of teaching and teacher training, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept the congratulations of the country and of hon. Members in all parts of the House on the fact that we are at last tackling the improvement and reform of teacher training? Will he also take up the question of establishing a staff college for head and senior teachers as a back-up for the reform of teacher training?

Mr. Patten: With the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, I wish that we had started our programme of vital education reforms 15 years ago with the reform of teacher training. That is when we should have started, but 15 years later we are getting going on it. My hon. Friend raises an important matter that has been put to me by head teachers who are more articulate and more sensible in discussing these matters than Opposition Members. The concept of a staff college for head teachers, deputy head teachers and aspiring heads and deputy heads is worth considering in discussions between the teaching profession and me. Anything that we can do to enhance the professional standing of teaching is good.

Nursery Education

Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the Government's response to the recommendation of the National Commission for Education on nursery education for three and four-year-olds.

Mr. Robin Squire: The national commission proposal for free state nursery education for all three and four-year-olds conflicts with our policy of choice and


diversity of provision which best meets the varied needs of children and their parents. It is also unrealistic in resource terms.

Mr. Chisholm: Is the Minister prepared to listen to research evidence rather than prejudice for a change? All the evidence shows that three and four-year-olds benefit socially and educationally from nursery provision. Does he accept that we are at the bottom of the European league for such provision and that there is good nursery education only under Labour local authorities such as Lothian, in whose area all four-year-olds receive free nursery education? How is the situation to be improved, given that the public expenditure round has been the worst for 14 years, with cuts targeted particularly on local authorities?

Mr. Squire: The Government are always willing to consider research conducted on that and many other subjects, but the research does not entirely substantiate what the hon. Gentleman said. It certainly confirms the advantage of pre-school experience, but not quite as strongly as the hon. Gentleman suggested. In response to his comments on political parties, I gently point out to him that Wandsworth council, which is under Conservative control and will remain so for many years, opts for 100 per cent. availability of nursery education.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the many parents in the Pre-School Playgroups Association, which provides such wonderful experience for our children, and will he condemn the fact that, although the Liberal Democrats constantly tell us how much they care about education, only one of them had bothered to turn up for education questions before the television cameras came on?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend makes the point about the Liberal Democrats more clearly than I could. I join him in paying tribute to the work of the Pre-School Playgroups Association. I had the pleasure of attending its annual conference recently and it is a first-class body of women and men, which does tremendous work across the country. If one or two local education authorities included the PPA in provision for under-fives, I suspect that they would have more choice. That is the sort of thing that we want to see happening everywhere.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Etherington: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Etherington: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House how, at a time of national financial restraint, he can justify the expenditure of £15 million of taxpayers' money by him and his Cabinet colleagues on entertainment? I understand that that fund is appropriately known as the drinks cabinet. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that expenditure is little less than a scandal, when public service workers are being told that

they face an indefinite wage freeze and does not it provide yet again that under his Administration there is one law for the powerful and another for the powerless?

The Prime Minister: At least the hon. Gentleman may be remembered for having made the worst pre-Christmas joke of the year. I happen to have the figures for No. 10 in front of me and I can tell him that expenditure on official hospitality at No. 10 was 27 per cent. lower than in previous years.

Mr. Pickles: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the upper schools in my constituency have opted out of local authority control—(Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Pickles: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all the upper schools in my constituency have opted out of local authority control and that one of them—the Anglo-European school, which has an international reputation—is under threat from Essex county council because of a decision by the Liberal Democrat and Labour coalition to withdraw discretionary fares? That school has been the jewel in the crown of Essex. It has a high reputation for language training, and represents—[Interruption] Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying—[Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning this—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman now. Thank you.

The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's pleasure in the number of schools that have become grant maintained, which now exceeds 1,000. I have not heard about the specific problem concerning a particular school in Essex, under the control of the Liberal Democrats, and I am sorry if there appears to be discrimination against the school.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is disgraceful that the sums of money being spent in the health service on increased bureaucracy, huge salaries and perks for managers and glossy public relations seem totally out of control?

The Prime Minister: I do not share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion that the expenditure is out of control. I do not believe that it is. The amount of expenditure on administration in the health service is very tightly examined and very tightly controlled. What I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that when I examined the control over health expenditure some years ago, as Chief Secretary, there was virtually no reasonable control over expenditure. It is necessary to have such control and I believe that it is right that we should have it.

Mr. John Smith: Has the Prime Minister looked at the affairs of the National Health Service Supplies Authority? If there is control, why did it waste hundreds of thousands of pounds on changing a single word in its name—£5,500 for a new logo, £61,000 for artwork, £67,000 on publications, £40,000 to replace signs and £20,000 to repaint the vans? That is £200,000 of which not a penny was spent on patient care. What kind of control is that?

The Prime Minister: Administrative costs in the health service are about 2 per cent. of total costs. There are very


few companies that could match that. There has been no time in our history when so many resources were devoted to patient care within the health service.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Prime Minister reluctant to condemn the example that I gave him because the chairman of the National Health Service Supplies Authority is Sir Robin Buchanan, a former Tory councillor and, until recently, the chairman of Wessex regional health authority, in which the grotesque mismanagement of public funds was exposed by the Public Accounts Committee?

The Prime Minister: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman utterly neglects to mention is the fact that there is more money in the health service and more patients are being treated in the health service than ever before. He may seek to throw sand in the eyes on other matters, but that is the reality of the health reforms and no sensible person would wish to reverse them.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend accept the view of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and of parliamentary delegations in Moscow monitoring the elections that the elections were full, free and fair? Will he make it clear that a Parliament or a Government, whether democratically elected or not, which show antagonism to Britain or the west, cannot expect to have economic aid poured in? Will he also make it clear that any move to annex nations that are now free and border on Commonwealth of Independent States countries must obtain the condemnation of the whole world?

The Prime Minister: We have not yet received the formal report from the observers of the elections, but the preliminary indications are that the elections were conducted freely and fairly. I look forward to the official reports in due course. It is, of course, too soon to say what the Russian Parliament will look like. There are a lot of results on a first-past-the-post basis that still have to come in. We shall have to examine that and examine the implications for British policy thereafter. It is undoubted that both the United Kingdom and the international community have recognised the independence of countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. We have recognised that and we expect their sovereignty to be respected.

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Banks: As we have been talking about wasting public money, will the Prime Minister tell us why he spent £292,000 on decorating No. 10 Downing street and improving the catering facilities? We thought that he had an outside caterer. Does he think that it is obscene that he should be spending that amount of taxpayer's money when, within yards of Downing street, thousands of people are living in cardboard boxes and in shop doorways? Is not it rather strange that a simple Brixton boy has become the Imelda Marcos of Downing street?

The Prime Minister: I seem to recall that the hon. Gentleman, as chairman of the Greater London council, used to arrive in the House of Commons in a

chauffeur-driven car, paid for by the ratepayers. I also seem to remember that that same south London boy blew ratepayers' money on a giant binge to celebrate the end of the GLC as well as on parties, fireworks and river trips. He even spent it on silver medallions for his GLC colleagues.
The money that the hon. Gentleman referred to being spent on Downing street—a public building—was used largely to repair the kitchens and other parts of the public aspect of the building.

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Riddick: With recent events in mind, does my right hon. Friend share my confidence that the Government will get their parliamentary business through this Session, bearing in mind the figures recently made public showing that out of the 200 Members with the best voting records, 191 were Conservatives and only six were Labour Members? Surely those figures show that the campaign of so-called non-co-operation is the hypocritical sham that we know it to be.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend understates the problem, as is his wont. Sham is precisely the right word. We know that the Labour party has broken off relations because it made a total mess of tabling an amendment on value added tax. It is now trying to hide the shambles that it made.
The idea that the Government are not allowing enough time to discuss budgetary measures is total and absolute nonsense. The Budget debate was extended by a day this year, and what happened? Hardly any Opposition Members turned up for that debate. I am not remotely surprised that only six Members out of the 200 with good voting records are Labour Members.
As for guillotines, I recall that five were introduced in a day by Mr, Michael Foot and the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) voted for them.

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Griffiths: Has the Prime Minister had time to read the excellent research conducated in America and Britain, which shows that the best and most cost-effective investment in education is that in nursery education? Will he prove the Daily Express right, for once, and commit his Government to providing nursery places for all three and four-year-olds? That would be a much better way of spending money than wasting it on Downing street, fripperies in the health service and paying off retired Cabinet Ministers.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may look, for example, at a Conservative education authority such as Wandsworth, which provides nursery education. He should also bear it in mind that, on other occasions, he and his colleagues have asked for diversity of choice to be given to education authorities about how they spend their money.

Mr. Viggers: Will my right hon. Friend join me in applauding the progress towards fair and democratic


government in much of central and eastern Europe? Does he agree that NATO must continue to develop the links and resources to ensure that that progress is safeguarded?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. The future of NATO and its role from here onwards is an important subject to be discussed at the NATO summit in mid-January.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cunningham: Is the Prime Minister aware that widespread concern will be felt throughout the country and particularly in Coventry about the £1 billion error which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted yesterday? Does that mean more cuts in benefit for low-income groups? Is the Prime Minister also aware of the concern felt by many about the breathtaking incompetence of the Government, as demonstrated by their admittance of that £1 billion error?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would do better to go back and read the evidence that was taken and then frame his question in a more accurate way.
The reality of what the Chief Secretary said yesterday makes no difference in practice. All social security—

[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen would be wise to listen. The point about the £1 billion was not that it was in error, but simply that it was scored in the wrong place.

Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave a few moments ago.

Sir John Hannam: When my right hon. Friend was in Brussels at the weekend, did he have the opportunity of exchanging views with the other European leaders about the state of their economies, particularly the levels of inflation, interest rates and economic growth—all areas in which my right hon. Friend is leading the way?

The Prime Minister: We had the opportunity of discussing the position across Europe. The fact is that, across Europe, the European Commission is forecasting a fall in GDP of around 0·5 per cent. In Germany, it is expected to fall by 2·25 per cent. in the current year and in France by 1 per cent. Industrial production is down in a number of countries. It is, of course, now rather different here: we have the lowest rates of interest in the Community; our inflation has been below the Community average for two years; unemployment is falling consistently in this country while it is rising elsewhere; and we have the fastest growth rate among European Community countries this year and by far the highest forecast for growth next year.

Local Government Finance (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): With your permission, Madam Speaker. I should like to make a statement on my proposals for local government finance in Wales for 1994–95. I have asked for the figures to be available in the Vote Office now for Members, and copies of this statement will be placed there at the end of my remarks.
I propose to set total standard spending at £2,704·8 million, an increase of 4·2 per cent. over 1993–94. Aggregate external finance will be at £2,419·2 million, an increase of 3·3 per cent. Both figures include care in the community.
Councils will receive revenue support grant of £1,740·1 million, business rates of £464 million and other revenue grants of £215·1 million. I am consulting local authorities on my proposals, and will advise the House of my final decision in the new year.
This settlement should be considered in the light of the low level of inflation—the latest retail prices increase is 1·4 per cent. and pay is rising by 1·5 per cent. in the public sector—and the Government's view that future pay increases should be met from savings arising from increased efficiency and improved performance.
My Department has today written to each local authority in Wales telling in its provisional standard spending assessment and provisional capping principles for 1994–95.
I hope that Welsh local authorities will budget wisely. It is important to ensure that local taxpayers are not faced with unreasonable bills. I therefore propose the following capping principles for 1994–95.
The first is that any increase of more than 1·75 per cent. over the 1993–94 budget requirement will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirements over the authority's SSA.
Secondly, any increase of more than 1·25 per cent. over the 1993–94 budget requirement will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement over 5 per cent. above the authority's SSA.
Thirdly, any increase of more than 0·75 per cent. over the 1993–94 budget requirement will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget requirement over 10 per cent. above the authority's SSA.
Fourthly, any budget requirement more than 12·5 per cent. above the SSA will be considered excessive subject to certain conditions.
An authority that sets a budget at or below its SSA will not, of course, be capped. Of necessity, my capping principles are provisional. I will take account of all appropriate considerations in making my decisions. Final SSAs will be announced in the new year.
I have decided to issue £503 million of capital grants and credit approvals for 1994–95. That represents a 4 per cent. increase on the current year. Given the low level of inflation, it will permit a good level of local authority capital investment.
Basic credit approvals for 1994–95 will amount to nearly £189 million, a 9·6 per cent. increase on 1993–94. That will give authorities more scope to set their own priorities for capital spending to meet local needs.
I have increased provision for educational capital by nearly 12 per cent. to a total of £42·5 million. I have

increased provision for environmental and economic development by more than 39 per cent., to a total of £37·6 million. That, among other things, should help local authorities in finding their portion of the costs of European regional development fund-backed projects.
I have allocated £49·8 million for capital projects in the strategic development scheme. I will be announcing next week the local strategies and projects that I will approve under that figure.
I have increased housing provision modestly to £265·7 million. Mandatory home renovation grants go up from £145·6 million to £149·1 million and discretionary disabled facilities grants from £26·3 million to £27·9 million.
Total provision for transport amounts to £94 million. The transport grant settlement of £63 million will provide assistance for 30 schemes in total. It will enable county councils to start four major schemes: the third Dee Crossing, the Rhuddlan bypass, the second phase of the A4067 Swansea valley dualling, and the Bridgend cross valley link. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome those proposals.
I shall also provide support towards the preparation costs of four new schemes that have been conditionally accepted for transport grant: the Newport southern distributor road, the Porth and Lower Rhondda Fach relief road, the initial phase of the A485 Ceredigion link road, and the East Moors dualling of the peripheral distributor road in South Glamorgan.
I have placed full details of my proposed capping principles, provisional standard spending assessments, and credit approvals for capital spending in the Vote Office and the Library.
I shall provide over £144 million of revenue and more than £15·5 million of capital to the Further Education Funding Council. That is an increase of 11·2 per cent. over the current year. I shall also provide nearly £200 million of revenue funding and almost £23 million of capital funding for the Higher Education Funding Council.
That, in conjunction with the substantial increase in local authority educational capital, shows the Government's commitment to a higher quality educational system, and to teaching and training more students and working from better buildings. In addition, I shall provide an extra £6·6 million for people with disabilities to pay for a range of new projects next year, of which £6·3 million will be spent by local authorities.
Local government in Wales will also wish to welcome gross Housing for Wales expenditure of £121·3 million next year, ensuring that the Housing for Wales's core programme will provide 3,800 extra homes next year, compared with 3,650 this year. That is a welcome increase in the number of new and improved homes.
I intend to use the extra money for Wales in the general settlement to reinforce our priorities of better education and health care, to complete the crucial investments in the future of Wales and to assist its economic recovery. I commend the proposals to the House.

Mr. Ron Davies: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, although there is nothing in it that will give any comfort to local government or to Wales.
Why is the Secretary of State so obsessed with maintaining secrecy about the details of the settlement? My hon. Friends may know—they may not be too disappointed when they do know—that the Secretary of


State has leaders of Welsh local government, who were told a couple of hours ago of the details of the statement, incarcerated in the Welsh Office in Cardiff. Why does the Secretary of State want to prevent hon. Members having before them the views and analyses of local government in their constituencies while he gives his report?
Why is the Secretary of State making such a mockery of the process of consultation that he is bound, by statute, to conduct? Nothing illustrates that better than his meeting dwith the county councils on 2 December to discuss the tier split. At 5 pm on that day, his Parliamentary Private Secretary undertook to give serious and detailed consideration to the case, and letters were delivered at 8·30 am the following morning, announcing that he had dismissed their representations. Why are such decisions taken before proper consultation is held?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that there is widespread dismay in local government at the further cuts in jobs and services that he is announcing today? Does he understand that that, coming on top of the wasteful and expensive reorganisation of local government that he is imposing—which no one in Wales wants—this will impose further burdens on council tax payers?
The Secretary of State is claiming an increase in spending. Why is he engaging in that sleight of hand when he is supposed to believe that cuts in public spending are good for Britain and the economy? Excluding care in the community, the SSA increase is nearly 1 per cent. below this year's actual budget and will inevitably mean further job losses. Does he realise that last year's settlement, which his predecessor hailed as "generous", resulted in 2,500 job losses in Wales, more than 2,000 of which were among teachers, lecturers and others involved in education?
If the Government's message is "back to basics", how will education be improved when school transport is cut, education welfare officers sacked and teachers made redundant? How will "back to basics" be achieved when the South Wales police authority cannot manage to police royal visits, and when chief constables are queuing up to tell the Secretary of State that they cannot do their job properly within the resources allowed?
The new capping criteria are arbitrary and complex, and designed to choke off local initiatives and flexibility. Was it the Secretary of State's wish that Wales should be brought into line with England, or did he succumb to Treasury pressure? Because the increase in external finance is less than the increase in spending, will that not mean a minimum increase of 15 per cent. for council tax payers in Wales?
Has the Secretary of State heard from local authorities in Wales that provision of care in the community is in a state of crisis due to a chronic lack of underfunding? [Interruption.] The £86 million quoted by the Secretary of State includes £37 million already promised. The new money for next year, £48 million, is only half of the amount estimated by local authorities to be the minimum requirement. That is on top of this year's underfunding of £20 million.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, since his predecessor's statement a year ago, Shelter Cymru estimates that homelessness in Wales has gone up by 10 per cent.? The Parliamentary Secretary may share a joke with the Secretary of State for Wales about this matter, but

I do not think that the increasing numbers of people who wander aimlessly on the streets of Wales because they are suffering from mental illness is anything to joke about.
After the massive cuts of last year, capital spending has been savaged yet again. Despite the Secretary of State's sleight of hand, capital expenditure by local authorities is down from £620 million last year to £503 million, a cut of 15 per cent. That will mean a loss of jobs, services and opportunities. The Government's policies are worlds away from their rhetoric.
We were promised quality in public services; the reality is savage cuts. We were promised a commitment to stability and economic growth; the statement will cost jobs. We were promised an open and democratic system of government; this system continues the process whereby more than £1 billion of public money will be transferred from democratic local government to undemocratic quangos.
The Secretary of State is widening the gulf between the people of Wales and the Government, and he and his colleagues will ultimately pay a heavy price for their failures.

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) would have been the first to complain if I had given the statement to others outside before extending the courtesy of telling the House. That is why, as is traditional, leaders of local government were invited to the Welsh Office to read the statement, but not to broadcast it before hon. Members had heard it from my own lips in the House. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that point. He and his hon. Friends always want to hear the news first, which is reasonable in a parliamentary democracy.
Of course I am now engaged in consultation on the proposals, as I have explained. There will be time aplenty for local authorities to consider them, and to give me the benefit of their views in writing over the next few weeks following my statement.
The hon. Gentleman sides with the counties on the tier split. Is he aware that the districts are very much in favour of the system that was hammered out between county and district over many years, and want it to continue this year? Perhaps he would like to explain to all the Labour leaders of districts in Wales why he is campaigning against them for the partial county view of the tier split.
As the split works out this year, it does not switch much money from country to district. I think it a fair settlement. I have chaired two meetings in which I have tried to establish a common view between counties and districts, but they were unable to reach such a view. We have therefore decided to continue with the original system that was agreed between them in previous years.
The hon. Gentleman says, wrongly, that no one wants our reorganisation. I suggest that he tell that to his friends in the Labour party in the big towns and cities, and in the historic Welsh shires, which are very keen for self-government and unitary status to be granted to them.
The hon. Gentleman juggles with figures that he little understands, and says misleading things. The truth is that the Welsh Office budget is up £320 million next year compared with this year; the truth is that total standard spending for local authorities—a big figure—is up by £100 million. Against a background of very low inflation and better control of public-sector pay than for many a long year, I consider that a good settlement. Well-run local


authorities will be able to deliver the goods and improve their services, and will not need to sack people, because they will have the money to do the job.
The hon. Gentleman criticises education authorities, and says that they will deliberately savage the services they offer, because he thinks that they will be unable to manage. I have more confidence in those authorities than does the hon. Gentleman; I believe that they can manage with the money that I am proposing to Parliament, and that, if they get their priorities right, they can raise standards in the way we want, and balance the books.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that the minimum increase in council tax will be 15 per cent. as a result of the settlement. That is simply untrue; I am sure that some local authorities in Wales will manage to deliver a good range of services without terrifying the taxpayers to that extent. Just in case there are any problems, however, I have the provisional capping in mind, lest authorities overspend and do their budgeting badly.
The hon. Gentleman went on to criticise what he described as a "chronic lack of underfunding" in care in the community. I think that that was why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was amused. I assume that the hon. Gentleman miscued his phrase.
If he meant that he was worried about a chronic lack of funding, I rebut his allegation very strongly. A large sum—£86 million—has been allowed for care in the community. I am very pleased with the way in which most local authorities are tackling the issue of care in the community in Wales: I see much good work as I go around the country. They will have extra money next year with which to get on with the job, and I wish them every success.
As for housing, the hon. Gentleman should read the statement again. As a result of today's announcement, 3,800 extra and improved houses are to be provided next year, on top of what the local authorities will be doing. I believe that that is a manful way of tackling the task, and I commend the proposals to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must keep in mind the business before the House, and strike a balance. I hope that hon. Members will co-operate by asking brisk questions, which produce brisk answers, so that I can do my best to call all who wish to be called.

Mr. Rod Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Rhuddlan will be dancing in the streets following his announcement that the town is to have a bypass? That bypass will not only relieve traffic congestion in the town itself and ease access to Glan Clwyd hospital, but facilitate the excellent work being done to develop Rhyl further as a tourist resort.

Mr. Redwood: I am delighted that my hon. Friend welcomes the news.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State will be aware that those with mortgages have benefited substantially in the recent past as a result of interest rate reductions. Is it fair for those who must pay council rents to expect a rent increase of some 7·5 per cent. as a result of the reduction in Government subsidy?

Mr. Redwood: Those who are in need and on low incomes will be taken care of through the benefits system. We believe that others should pay a realistic rent for their housing.

Mr. Roger Evans: My right hon. Friend referred to £86 million being provided for community care in Wales next year. How much of an increase is that?

Mr. Redwood: From memory, it is £38 million this year, and it will be £86 million next year as the range of services increases.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Secretary of State appreciate that, after listening to him, I was left with the thought that the old concept of local government had become almost meaningless? Is it not all about the diktat of central Government allied to quangos? Is it not time that we got back to the old principle of local power, local autonomy and local decision-making?

Mr. Redwood: Today's announcement grants permission for £2,700 million to be spent by local authorities, which gives them enormous choice and control over cash and people and other resources. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. It dwarfs the resources going through most of the non-departmental bodies under the Welsh Office, and rightly so, because it means that local people have a direct interest in making decisions and spending money on behalf of their local communities. Ninety per cent. of the money comes from central Government sources, but is given, in the main, in a block grant to maximise that local choice.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the formula that is used for the division of the increased resources that he has announced for local government will be according to the formula that was set by the local authorities in co-operation, as has traditionally been the case?
Has my right hon. Friend reached a conclusion regarding Housing for Wales's expenditure in relation to the grant rate? He will be aware of the concern that has been expressed on both sides of the House about a potential reduction in the amount of public finance and an increase in the amount of private finance that housing associations will have to find. Has my right hon. Friend reached a conclusion on that issue?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is an agreed formula—something that I welcome and that England would be well advised to follow, judging from the Welsh experience. We are proposing a grant rate of 62 per cent. I believe that we can build more from the public moneys available because, now that the market is improving and the private finances are a little more confident, we can expect them to make a proportionately larger contribution.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Secretary of State recall the bizarre incident in the past year on the day of the local government elections, when the previous Secretary of State threatened to take Gwent county council to court because of its Budget? As a result, enormous expense was incurred by the county council, a great deal of energy was expended and, afterwards, the Welsh Office withdrew its threat.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that Gwent county council will be compensated for any cost


that it suffered because of that, and also that Newport borough council will be compensated for the decision to impose costs on it because of its Browning Ferris decision? Will he give an undertaking that the Welsh Office will not engage in more crude, futile, political stunts?

Mr. Redwood: It was not a political stunt. The case was well judged by the Welsh Office. Unfortunately, the courts were not able to resolve it in a sensible time for the current budgetary year, which was the only reason why I agreed to its withdrawal. Were the county council to budget next year in a way in which we thought was wrong, of course we would wish to take action.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Secretary of State assure us that, in no part of Wales, anyone who is entitled to a house renovation grant—disabled people especially—will be refused because of lack of resources? Will he say which roads scheme will help Trawsfynydd area in the wake of the rundown of the nuclear power station?

Mr. Redwood: Local authority roads are a matter for the priorities of local authority, and the hon. Gentleman should talk to them about that matter. I have made an increase in the money available for house renovation, especially for those who are disabled. That will represent a welcome extension in the number receiving the benefit, which he and I would like to see them get. I cannot make an absolute promise, because I do not know yet entirely how the pattern of demand will work out. My intention is that we should meet that demand as best we can, and I have therefore increased the amount of money to do so.

Mr. Allan Rogers: The Secretary of State twice regurgitated the figure for housing starts, saying that it was increasing from 3,600 to 3,800 for the whole of Wales. Why does he not put it in context and accept that there are more people on the housing lists in the Rhondda than the number of starts that he is approving today?

Mr. Redwood: I am pleased, as is the hon. Gentleman, that many people on the housing list are currently housed and are seeking better accommodation, which will mean changing accommodation. It does not mean that we need to build the number of houses to equal the number of people on all the housing waiting lists in Wales. I believe that this programme, coupled with private sector programmes and other initiatives, will be a sizeable improvement in the position, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome it.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: In the name of care in the community, Mid Glamorgan area health authority is closing down wards and is proposing to shut down Mardy hospital in Merthyr Tydfil. At the same time, everybody in the community knows that the care is not there, particularly for the elderly.
Since it is mostly the elderly in our communities who tend to take care of the elderly, will the Secretary of State take a good look at this again and discover what is going on? The majority of people do not feel that there is a care in the community system that is capable of meeting the needs, especially given the loss of vital hospital beds, particularly respite beds for the elderly.

Mr. Redwood: I share with the hon. Gentleman the wish that Merthyr hospital should be better run, and we have changed the management comparatively recently to

try to achieve that aim. Care in the community is a local Government policy, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will work with his local authority to obtain the best value for the substantial increases in money that I have announced today and which I will be making available. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also welcome the important road scheme for his area.

Dr. Kim Howells: Will the Secretary of State admit that an increase in standing spending assessment in Taff Ely of a mere £342,000 in the coming year will pay for, at the most, 20 house improvement grants when there are thousands of people in that borough seeking more suitable and better accommodation, including many disabled people who cannot even have the money to allow them to take wheelchairs into the toilet? Why will the Secretary of State continue to condemn such people to that sort of life when he has an opportunity to make their lives much better?

Mr. Redwood: That is a bit rich when I announced a special £6·6 million package for the disabled on top of the general support grant that has been announed. The hon. Gentleman's local authority will receive a 2·4 per cent. increase in its SSA under these proposals, which is well ahead of inflation and pay increases.

Mr. David Evans: Will the Secretary of State confirm that record amounts of money have been spent in Wales? Does not that prove that we are the party of hot money and that lot over there are the party of hot air?

Mr. Redwood: I am delighted to welcome my hon. Friend to Welsh questions. I can assure the House that he and I had not colluded on that question, but I agree with its sentiments entirely.

Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Secretary of State admit that he has delivered his usual diet of slippery statistics and smooth talk? The fact is that, yet again, there will be a reduction in the budget of West Glamorgan county, which will hit, for example, students seeking discretionary awards. Why does he not have any compassion for the skilled young people who want to do better with their lives by obtaining student places, but who are unable to do so because of the cuts that he has confirmed today?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has not studied the figures. The total SSA for West Glamorgan will be up 5·2 per cent. on the basis that I have outlined. I have announced today major increases in higher and further education budgets and in capital for education through local authorities, because I am serious about improving educational standards, and it will not be for lack of money that we do not succeed.

Mr. Barry Jones: The River Dee crossing announcement will be welcomed. It is a £60 million scheme, which will provide hundreds of jobs for local unemployed construction workers. Will it be complete by 1997, bearing in mind the distress and traffic jams that have been created because of the 10-year delay in its construction? Now that the Secretary of State has done the decent and honourable thing for Deeside, will he bear in mind the fact that we do not need the massive improvement in the road section at Aston Hill?

Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for the advice on the hon. Gentleman's third point. On his first question, I am advised that it is a £55 million scheme. The answer to his second question will in part depend on the local authority's decisions on phasing.

Mr. Nick Ainger: Does the Secretary of State accept that, although he has announced an apparent increase in capital expenditure for all county councils, compared with two years ago it still represents a significant cut? For instance, two years ago Dyfed county council received a basic credit approval of more than £13 million, and the Secretary of State has just announced that it is £11·2 million. Does he recognise that that is a massive cut in two years, which prevents county councils throughout Wales from improving and building the new schools and other properties that are required, particularly for community care?

Mr. Redwood: It is an increase on the current year, and it is given in a way that increases local discretion to choose schemes.

Mr. Llew Smith: How many people in Wales are homeless, and how many additional houses will be built as a result of the statement?

Mr. Redwood: I do not know how many people are homeless. That is not the same statistic as the one that hon. Members often trot out. It is important not to confuse homelessness, when people have no roof over their heads, with unsatisfactory housing, when people would like to change the house or flat in which they live. There is often confusion on that point.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank the Secretary of State for the additional £6 million-plus for the disabled and the almost 6 per cent. increase in the disabled facilities grant under the housing budget. But despite that increase,

on the evidence of my borough of Ogwr, those increases will not be sufficient. Once he has given that money to the local authorities, will he carry out a survey to find out how many people are waiting for disabled facilities to be provided in their homes? That rmains a scandal.

Mr. Redwood: I took advice before choosing the amount of money, and the amount I chose was based on advice about what could be spent on decent schemes. If evidence comes to light in the next few months that more could be spent on good schemes for the disabled, I shall look again at that figure. In the meantime, however, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome. I intend to do well by the disabled; that is the purpose of the £6·6 million.

Mr. Paul Murphy: Does the Secretary of State admit that it is shameful that he is unaware that there are 10,000 homeless people and at least 80,000 people waiting for council houses in Wales? The settlement will do absolutely nothing to improve their position. Will he admit that the people of Wales see no sense in cutting services that are essential to the quality of their lives while he is preparing to spend millions of pounds on a so-called reform of local government that no one in Wales wants?

Mr. Redwood: The reform of local government will not incur heavy expenditure in the ensuing year that we are discussing. The aim will be to produce savings if there are transitional costs. The main cost would be shedding people, which would lead to revenue savings if councils chose to do that when we reach that stage.
On the homeless, the hon. Gentleman falls into exactly the same trap as I outlined in an earlier reply. The 10,000 people will not be without a roof over their heads tonight. They would like, and many of them need, better housing. The number of people without a roof is tiny, and my hon. Friends and I are attempting to tackle that problem, because it is unacceptable.

Sir Robin Buchanan

Mr. Peter Viggers: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Prime Minister's Questions, the Leader of the Opposition attacked Sir Robin Buchanan in his capacity as chairman of the Wessex health authority. Those of us whose constituencies are within the Wessex regional health authority area know that there was a scandal involving the Wessex—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who is a long-standing Member of the House, but I cannot allow Question Time to be prolonged in this way. If he has a point of order that I can deal with, I shall try my best to do so. Will he raise a point of order that concerns me as Speaker?

Mr. Viggers: This is a fair point of order, Madam Speaker.
An attack was made on Sir Robin Buchanan, and those of us in the Wessex regional health authority area know him to be one who has given distinguished public service. I should like the record to show—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is attempting to prolong questions and to debate the matter. It is not a point of order for me as Speaker.

Statutory Sick Pay Bill and Social Security (Contributions) Bill

(Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill:
Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading: Statutory Sick Pay Bill
1.—(1) The proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill shall be completed at the sitting on 15th December.
(2) The proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement, and the proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on Second Reading.
(3) When the Bill has been read a second time it shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any question being put and the Speaker shall forthwith leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(4) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(5) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.
Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading: Social Security

(Contributions)Bill

2.—(1) The proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading of the Social Security (Contributions) Bill shall be completed at the sitting on 16th December.
(2) The proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement, and the proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on Second Reading.
(3) When the Bill has been read a second time it shall notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any question being put and the Speaker shall forthwith leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(4) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(5) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Conclusion of proceedings

3.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings on either Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2.
(2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;


(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(4) If on 15th or 16th December a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock and proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before that time—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time; and
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Business Committee

4. Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Dilatory Motions

5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings on either Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra Time

6. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill at the sitting on 15th December and to proceedings on the Social Security (Contributions) Bill at the sitting on 16th December.

Supplemental orders

7.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
(2) If at any sitting the House is adjourned, or if any sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this order.

Saving

8. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order.

Recommittal

9.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit either Bill to which this Order applies (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Before discussing the two Bills and the reason for proposing the motion, I should first describe, simply and clearly, what it provides for, since there was some doubt about that last night—although I accept that those who expressed that doubt had not then had the opportunity to study the motion.

For each Bill, the motion provides for six hours of debate, divided between three hours on Second Reading and three hours for remaining stages. Overall, therefore, each Bill has broadly the equivalent of a full normal parliamentary day.

Additionally, although this is not in the motion, we have separately provided time for the money resolution required for the SSP Bill—last night—and for the Ways and Means resolution required for the contributions Bill, which is

down for discussion on Wednesday evening. That has the effect both of avoiding procedural confusion after Second Reading and of providing additional time for discussion of matters arising from the two Bills.

Although I of course accept that the context is one that the Opposition do not like, to put it mildly, we sought to ease the problems that the House would otherwise have faced in relation to amendments by means of a motion—somewhat unexpectedly debated, but, I am happy to say, agreed to without dissent, on Friday—to allow the tabling of amendments to either or both in advance of Second Reading.

The content and the purpose of the two Bills will be dealt with more fully by my right hon. Friends when they speak on Second Reading. I shall therefore confine myself to a brief outline.

The principal purpose of the contributions Bill is contained in clause 1, which increases national insurance contributions payable by employees by 1 per cent. from April 1994. That proposal was originally made in the Budget presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) in March; but clearly the revenue involved, about £1·9 billion, is an important ingredient in the more recent Budget judgment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). It ensures for the forthcoming year the financial soundness of the national insurance fund, from which all state retirement pensions and many other benefits are paid.

This is overwhelmingly the main point of the Bill. The other two clauses, apart from commencement provisions and the like, are simply designed to establish with greater certainty two points which already represent the general understanding and which have not been challenged—yet some doubt about them has arisen.

Clause 2 establishes that certainty in respect of the allocations made to the NHS from the national insurance fund—nothing new about those allocations—and clause 3 establishes with certainty that, just as payments towards personal pensions are not allowed as a deduction by employees from their income on which class 1 contributions are calculated, they are not allowed either as a deduction by the self-employed from the profits on which class 4 contributions are calculated. In both cases, these provisions do no more than establish more firmly what has always been intended and understood.

The second Bill is the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. Here, the main purpose is to implement one of the key expenditure proposals of the Budget—the abolition of the arrangements under which 80 per cent. of the cost of statutory sick pay is reimbursed to employers. This is part of a package, the other elements of which do not require legislation but will be implemented in other ways.

The package will include a major reduction in employers' national insurance contributions, will extend and improve the 100 per cent. reimbursement arrangements for small employers after a period, and will bring about overall a net reduction of about £100 million in the costs of British industry, even after allowing for the SSP changes.

No employee's entitlement is in any way reduced. Indeed, as a result of another element in the package, the abolition of the lower rate of SSP in April 1995, about 50,000 less well paid people will gain increased entitlements to SSP. From April 1995, they will receive it at the higher rate, which will then be the only rate.

The Bill also contains one other provision of limited but beneficial effect; it extends statutory sick pay entitlement to women who work past the age of 60, the age at which their entitlement currently ceases. It will now be available to them until they are 65, thus bringing about a modest but useful extension of equal treatment and, indeed, entailing additional spending of about £10 million.

Against that background, let me make five key points to the House. First, the two Bills represent two important elements in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget, involving on the one hand significant amounts of revenue and, on the other, significant amounts of expenditure. They are therefore important elements in a policy—which is overwhelmingly supported, I think, by Conservative Members, if not by the Opposition—to improve public finances and to ensure that the recovery now taking place continues and is sustained. The Bills need now to be put in place in a sensible and orderly way.

Secondly, the Bills are not long and complicated. Although related to wider and more complex changes, some of which I touched on, essentially they are directed to two clear and straightforward, although not uncontroversial, propositions. The first is that employees' contributions should go up by 1 per cent.; the second is that 80 per cent. refunds of SSP should be ended.

As I have observed once or twice before, there has already been much opportunity to debate those propositions. Taking account of two Budget debates and a Queen's Speech debate, which covered the contributions Bill, the contributions proposals could have been debated for a total of 15 days. I accept that less time has been available to debate SSP, but we have just had a substantial Budget debate, which was extended by one day at the request of the Opposition specifically to embrace the fact that public expenditure was involved. The SSP proposal is a public expenditure proposal in the Budget, for which the debate was extended by a day.

Thirdly, the two Bills are tied closely together. It would plainly not be sensible to try to carry out the rest of the annual uprating of national insurance contributions in April with a large element of it legally unsettled. Equally plainly, it would not be sensible to make the SSP change without at the same time making the national insurance changes that go with it. They need to be dealt with alongside each other.

Fourthly, I accept that it is not impossible for such changes to be carried out at times other than April, but it is overwhelmingly for the convenience of business to make them, along with all the other changes in payroll systems and the like that occur at this time, at the beginning of the financial year in April.

Fifthly, and crucially, to achieve that, and to make those necessary changes in a way that does not cause unnecessary cost and inconvenience to industry, the House needs to carry the Bills before the forthcoming recess. I can perhaps best show that by working back from the intended date of implementation—6 April.

To meet that date, the Department of Social Security, the Contributions Agency and other parts of the DSS need to issue the necessary contributions tables and other instructions to some 1·2 million employers in February. Affirmative orders must be laid beforehand in early February, with proper time for consideration by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and by both Houses. There will be several further opportunities for debate on the detail of the measures.

Mr. Peter Hain: When was a similar Bill last guillotined in this way?

Mr. Newton: The nearest comparison that I can make is with the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill two or three years ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Before Second Reading?"] Yes, before Second Reading; I think that is right.
In another respect, we face entirely new circumstances this year. It is the first unified Budget for a considerable time. [Interruption.] The unification of the Budget has been widely supported on both sides of the House. It took place on 30 November and included expenditure proposals alongside tax proposals, which require primary legislation but which do not have the same special procedures that tax legislation requires. That has therefore made it necessary to act in the way that I am seeking to persuade the House to accept.

Mr. John Hutton: On what previous occasions at this stage of the parliamentary Session—only four weeks into it—have two important Bills of such magnitude been subjected to a guillotine motion? It is common to guillotine Bills at the back end of a Session, but not at this stage. On what previous occasion has such a guillotine motion been proposed?

Mr. Newton: I had just completed my argument to answer that question. The sort of question that the hon. Gentleman has just asked me might make more sense if we were talking about an education Bill or others that I can think of, but it is not relevant to today's circumstances.
The two proposals are an integral part of the Budget announced on 30 November, with which a range of measures was needed to ensure that the proposals could be carried through coherently by 6 April. I am stating the procedures required of the House of Commons and the other place to enable that process to be carried out in a way that allows British industry to implement the proposals in a sensible and convenient way.

Mr. John Denham: Does the Leader of the House anticipate that it will become an annual event for measures arising from the Budget that have to be passed by April? If not, what does he intend to do in future years?

Mr. Newton: I shall give the hon. Gentleman an entirely serious reply, as I have sought to do with previous questions. As I have said on a number of occasions—not least when occasionally responding to my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, as well as to questions from other parts of the House—in the wake of our experience with the unified Budget procedures this year, we shall need to consider whether there are further lessons to be drawn.
Some of those lessons could not have become apparent until we had undergone that experience. It may well be that the problem that could arise in relation to expenditure proposals flowing from the Budget, and in the time scale that we are talking about, could require further thinking. That additional consideration would not necessarily be on the same long established lines for dealing with tax proposals, such as the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, but could require further thought on how such matters could be most appropriately handled.

Mr. Derek Enright: Is it not true that, as a result of moving things too quickly, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—God bless him—has had to admit to a £1 billion error which, had he been more careful and examined the expenditure in more detail, could have been uncovered? Will not a similar error be made now if we do not look at the Bill properly?

Mr. Newton: First, I imagine that the hon. Gentleman, who assiduously attends our proceedings, will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the story on which the hon. Gentleman's question was based. Secondly, I do not accept that there is a parallel with the proceedings on which I am encouraging the House to embark.
A range of affirmative and negative orders—I am concentrating on the affirmative ones—will need to be laid in early February, allowing proper time for consideration by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and a proper opportunity for debate by both Houses. We shall seek to provide that. Before that process, which must start in early February, the other place must deal with the two Bills after Parliament resumes in mid-January. If people think fairly and objectively about that, they will see that there is a need for the House to proceed with the measures this week, which is the reason for the motion.
From recollection, I believe that it has been customary to conclude such speeches with what is sometimes called knockabout, with references to the number of guillotines moved by one's predecessors of different political persuasions. I could make a number of such references, but I think that the case that I have made is clear and compelling and will command the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am content to rest my case on that, and to commend the motion to the House.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Today's debate is a classic example of the warning contained in "Erskine May" about guillotining motions. They are a potential risk to democracy because they are capable of being used
in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business"—
that is, the business of this place—
and the rights of debate.
During the 20 years since I was elected to the House, I cannot recall a better example of the relevance of that warning. We are discussing the guillotining of two Bills that will affect every member of the British work force and every British company. One Bill will penalise all members of the British work force because it will increae the tax take from their salaries, while the other Bill will penalise—or so it would appear—all British companies because it will increase their costs and the bureaucracy that they face.
We are having a debate on a guillotine motion because the Government do not want to talk about the issues; they simply want to use their parliamentary majority to get them out of the way.

Ms Joan Walley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only today I had a letter from the PMT bus company in Stoke-on-Trent clearly stating that, as a result of the Government's proposals, it is likely that there will be an increase in bus fares? Surely we should have the opportunity to scrutinise the Bills properly, rather than pushing each through in one day.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is precisely the purpose of scrutiny of legislation that such points should emerge from people outside this place. Parliament exists to scrutinise legislation; that is why we are here. In particular, this place exists and our greatest duties—for hon. Members on both sides of the House—stem directly from the need to scrutinise the tax raising and expenditure of Government. It is extraordinary that any Government should suggest curtailing scrutiny in the way that is proposed today. Not only are we asked to guillotine two Bills in one day, but each will have only one day's debate in this place.
The first of the Bills raises national insurance contributions for every working person by 1 per cent. That will raise £2 billion—two thousand million pounds—every penny out of the pay packets of the British work force. It actually raises £300 million a year more than a penny increase in income tax would have raised. No one could argue that those are not substantial sums or that they are not of considerable importance.
The second Bill—the Statutory Sick Pay Bill—transfers the administration of SSP from the Government to private industry. That transfer will mean savings for the Government of £750 million—again, a substantial sum. The Government claim that employers will be fully compensated for that transfer by the cuts being made elsewhere in national insurance contributions. That is part of the Government's case for curtailing debate.
Frankly, the House should doubt whether that is the case—as does British business, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) identified. I shall come a little later to the reasons why that doubt is considerable—reasons based on the proposals being put before the House, rather than simply on the straightforward presumption that a Government who are behaving in such a hole-in-the-corner way are a Government with something to hide, as appears to be the case.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is not it one of the ironies of such an extraordinary piece of arrogant behaviour that the Government have succeeded in highlighting the very facts that they would rather the electorate did not know about?

Mrs. Beckett: I am indebted to my hon. Friend. She is entirely right. Speaking as someone who, in common with others in the Chamber, has spent some five years trying to get the public to take an interest in social security matters, often of immense importance to them, I certainly take the view that, if it had not been for the Government's incompetence as well as their disregard of the proceedings of the House, people would be much less aware of what is going on.
Usually, when we have debates because the Government have chosen to guillotine our proceedings, the Lord President spends much time claiming that time is being wasted in Committee and that great discussion has already been undertaken. He sought to claim credit today for his forbearance but, of course, he cannot make that claim today because we have not had a minute of debate on this legislation. Last week, he fell back on the claim that, with regard to the Social Security (Contributions) Bill, the increase was announced in the Budget a year ago, so there was no need to debate the detail.
That, in itself, is a dubious claim. First, the Bill contains somewhat minor and technical provisions with regard to


the health service and personal pensions, to which the Lord President drew attention, but those clauses are there because preceeding legislation is either wrong or unclear. We scrutinise legislation so that, irrespective of what the Government intend, they can get the legislation right.
Secondly, as anyone who is suffering from the ministrations of the Child Support Agency can tell the Government, the devil is often in the detail. All hon. Members approve of the idea that people should contribute towards the upkeep of their children; very few people approve of the way that it is being done. That again, I repeat, is what this place is for, irrespective of the party that hon. Members represent.

Ms Walley: We are now having to sort out many issues simply because the Government have failed to get legislation right in the first place. My right hon. Friend has just mentioned specific legislation. Will she also bear in mind the way in which the Government have completely failed properly to scrutinise the European directive on the transfer of undertakings? Shall we not end up in exactly the same position with the legislation that we are about to scrutinise simply because the Government are not prepared to get it right and are not prepared to bring it to the House for proper scrutiny?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is again entirely right.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does not the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) underline the need for the House to spend time scrutinising European legislation rather than debating humdrum bits of legislation that have the broad support of the House? Was not the European directive on the transfer of undertakings brought forward under the previous Labour Government? If we had a system for the proper scrutiny of draft European legislation, would not we be able to deal with the problem raised by the hon. Lady? Do not we need to spend more time scrutinising the vast quantity of European legislation and less time talking up bogus divisions between the two sides of the House in order to conceal the ever-encroaching nature of the EC?

Mrs. Beckett: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He can be assured that his words will go clown in history, at least on the Opposition Benches, and he can expect to have frequently quoted back at him, and frequently quoted back at his right hon. and hon. Friends, his words about humdrum legislation, which merely affects every member of the British work force and takes money out of their pay packets. That was a most revealing observation. The hon. Gentleman has clearly betrayed the fact that an increasing number of Conservative Members have no idea that this place is for the scrutiny of legislation of all kinds.
This place exists not only for us to have an opportunity to ask our questions and to probe; as my hon. Friend has made clear, it is for those outside this place who will be affected by the legislation, those members of the British work force and every British company that will be affected by the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. It exists so that they can scrutinise the legislation, ask their questions and perhaps, if they are extraordinarily lucky, even have them answered. It is not only our freedoms that are being curtailed by this procedure; their right as citizens to know that Parliament has examined legislation which will so seriously affect them is also being curtailed.

Mr. James Paice: A few minutes ago, the right hon. Lady called the Child Support Agency in her aid. She was right to think that many Conservative Members are just as worried as she is about some of the ways in which the policy has turned into reality. Does she accept that the legislation to set up the Child Support Agency was not guillotined, which demonstrates that a guillotine does not necessarily prevent scrutiny? Even without a guillotine, we do not necessarily get it right.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I am not sure that it will work out in the way that he intended. Certainly, even with the scrutiny that is available, Parliament sometimes overlooks things or fails to get sufficient straight answers from the Government. How much worse, therefore, is it likely to be when we are allowed such a minuscule amount of time?
Furthermore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman intends to stay for the rest of this part of the debate. I assure him that I shall be able to point out to him something that Parliament has already missed in the proposals.

Mr. James Clappison: If the matter is so strikingly in need of scrutiny, can the right hon. Lady enlighten us as to why the Leader of the Opposition made no mention of it in his response to the Budget and gave it no scrutiny?

Mrs. Beckett: It is essential in the reply to a Budget speech to deal with the broad sweep of the debate. My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned some of these issues.

Mr. Clappison: Did he mention statutory sick pay?

Mrs. Beckett: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question. If he would like to stay to hear a little more of my speech, he will find out one of the difficulties that lie behind the statutory sick pay proposal and one of the reasons why the guillotine motion is before the House today.
The Lord President justified the guillotine on the Social Security (Contributions) Bill by advancing the notion that, as the proposal has been around for a year, there was no need to scrutinise it. That is the complete opposite of the position on statutory sick pay. That proposal has been around only since 30 November. No one has had time to scrutinise it. What is more, as I have already said, the way in which it was described was seriously misleading. The Government have claimed that there is nothing untoward or almost nothing unusual about their method of proceeding.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Humdrum.

Mrs. Beckett: Humdrum, as my hon. Friend says.
There is only one precedent that we have been able to discover—the Lord President also identified it—of a Bill being guillotined before it had even received Second Reading. That precedent is instructive. The precedent is the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991. It has similarities with the Bill that we are debating today in that the Government clearly were not anxious to spend much time debating the issue. The Bill dealt with the most embarrassing policy, up to now, that the Government have pursued in their years in office—the policy of the poll tax. The Government wanted to spend as little time as possible


dwelling on the impact of the poll tax. That is the similarity with the guillotine that we are discussing. That is where the similarity ends.
The Act followed hot on the heels of a Budget in which the Conservative party increased VAT to 17·5 per cent. It was, in fact, the counterbalance to the cut in poll tax of £140, paid for by an increase to 17·5 per cent. in VAT. The Budget statement in which VAT was increased was made on 19 March. The Bill was produced on 26 March and debated in one day. We opposed the guillotining of that Bill because we thought that it was not the right way in which to dispose of such vast sums of money. We were right to recognise the dangers of that precedent. At least that Bill was the means whereby the Chancellor put back into people's pockets the money that he had taken out a few days before in the Budget.
There is no such excuse for the provisions that we are discussing today. They are a straightforward increase in deductions from people's take-home pay made in direct contravention of what was promised by the Conservative party and the Prime Minister before the general election campaign.
Let me remind the Lord President that one reason why the Social Security (Contributions) Bill is before us is that a change of this magnitude in the Government's tax-raising powers requires primary legislation. I have no doubt whatever that if the change did not require primary legislation, the Government would scuttle the matter through in whatever hole and corner way they could find. The remark of the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) that some of the legislation is humdrum confirms that view. The Government cannot get out of presenting the legislation to the House, but they have chosen to allow it to be debated as briefly as possible, allowing the princely total of less than six hours' debate for all stages of the Bill before it goes to another place.
I shall now deal with statutory sick pay. The Lord President's argument on the Statutory Sick Pay falls on the fact that we have known about it for less than two weeks. When the Government curtailed the previous arrangement on statutory sick pay of 100 per cent. reimbursement by reducing it to 80 per cent., the Lord President said:
It is entirely proper that we should come to the House with primary legislation to effect that change …that is the…legislation that we are debating."—[Official Report, 28 November, 1990; Vol. 181, c. 917.]
The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that the change was so significant that it had to be scrutinised properly. But that was a less sweeping step than the one in the Bill: it simply reduced the reimbursement from 100 to 80 per cent.
At the time, we were suspicious of the Government's further intentions and in debate we drew attention to that concern. Anxiety about the Government's intentions runs through the history of statutory sick pay. When it was introduced, the Government said that it would apply for periods of only six weeks and that it would be wrong to go further because of the danger of putting burdens on British business. Within a year they had gone further by increasing the period over which it applied from six weeks to six months.
That, too, was a less sweeping change than the one in the Bill. Not only was that legislation referred to by the

Leader of the House in the way that I described but, despite being of lesser purport, it was discussed for more than 50 hours in the Chamber and in Committee.
On 1 March, the permanent secretary to the Department appeared before the Public Accounts Committee. There was again some suspicion about the Government's motive. No doubt some Conservative Members will think that it was unworthy. The permanent secretary was asked whether the Government had any plans to go ahead with further reductions and further burdens on British business. He replied:
No, there are no plans by Ministers at the moment to do that. Obviously, that is something they keep under review.
He was further pressed by the Committee and said:
What you expect or what you do not expect is something you must deduce. We keep it under review.
In line with a recent television programme, he should have said, "You might think that; I could not possibly comment."
The Government claim that the change is of no importance because there will be no losers. That is their basic argument about curtailing the debate and, plainly, it has been swallowed by some of their Back Benchers. They say that, because there will be no losers, the Bill can go ahead without full scrutiny.
Plainly, that argument is not accepted by the Institute of Directors, which is normally a friend of the Government. At the weekend, the institute suggested that the proposals would have a damaging effect on British business. It is not accepted by the Confederation of British Industry which, in the short time available, has written to hon. Members expressing concern about the principle of the changes which, it says,
poses fundamental questions about who should bear the cost of social security provision".
The CBI note says that it hopes that those questions will be explored—in the debates that the Government are now curtailing. It also says that, because of the overall Budget package and the Chancellor's reassurance, it does not necessarily wish to oppose the Bill, although it seeks various assurances from the Government.
I wonder whether the CBI is right about being reassured. Of course, this is exactly the kind of issue that it is right and proper to explore in Committee. That is the purpose of a Committee, but it appears that, at least in some respects, the Chancellor may have been economical with the truth in his reassurance in the Budget speech to which the CBI refers. The Government say that large companies will be compensated for the change by the reduction in national insurance contributions that will occur in other ways.
Later in the Budget speech, the Chancellor said:
for well managed companies with low sickness rates, there will be a net reduction in the cost of employing people. Other companies will have a much sharper incentive to improve their management of sick leave and to take a greater interest in the health of their own employees.
If there is no cost to business, where does that incentive, never mind a "sharper incentive", come from? The whole point, for the Government, is that there will be a cost unless companies themselves take other steps, which are not identified. Judging from the CBI survey of the management of sick leave, produced a little while ago, no such policies have been identified by anyone. Given the Government's track record, the fact that they cannot give us any breakdown of where the balance of the proposals for financial compensation in the Bill lies—to what extent the cut will compensate for statutory sick pay and to what


extent it will contribute, as the Government suggested, to job creation schemes—raises doubts. The Government's imprecision gives us real concern.
What about small companies? The Chancellor continued his Budget speech by saying:
the current special exemptions"—
for small companies—
will be extended. At present, those with national insurance bills of less than £16,000 a year are fully reimbursed after the first six weeks of each…claim. I propose to increase that threshold to £20,000, to bring more companies into the scheme, and to provide full reimbursement after only four weeks. Two thirds of all employers will therefore continue to get help."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 926.]
That undoubtedly created the impression that there would be no cost to small companies—indeed, that they might benefit. Unfortunately, it appears that that is not true.
The Chancellor mentioned improvements that he said he was making, but in preparing for today's debate our inquiries have elicited the information that there will be increased costs for small companies. At present, 80 per cent. of the costs of small companies are reimbursed for the first six weeks, and after that they receive 100 per cent. of their costs. The time limit is being lowered to four weeks, but until four weeks have passed small companies will get nothing. I repeat: they will get not one penny—not one halfpenny—of compensation for the first four weeks. Only then will they receive 100 per cent. compensation. No doubt it is merely an unfortunate coincidence that, as all the surveys confirm, the vast majority of periods of sick leave are shorter than four weeks.
There is no reference to those facts in the Bill or in the notes on clauses. They emerged only during our inquiries in preparation for the debate. With only six hours available for all stages of the Bill, the facts might not have emerged at all during the debates. I assume that hon. Members would have concentrated their scrutiny of the legislation on what they thought were the difficult points, not on aspects that the Chancellor's words had led them to assume would not raise any problems.
We now know that there will be a cost—probably a substantial cost—for small businesses, and that it will be enshrined in regulations, which, as everyone in the House knows, cannot be amended. Yet hon. Members on both sides of the House would not have drawn that implication from the Chancellor's words. That not only highlights the need for scrutiny of legislation but shows us all why the guillotine motion is before us.
Tory Back Benchers are fond of posing as the champions of srnall business. There have been references in the press today—clearly, the result of briefings by Conservative Members—about the reassurance given to disgruntled Tory Back Benchers. Now we know what they were disgruntled about; they were being conned into voting for the Government, assuming that small businesses would be compensated. Now they know what is happening, and they can decide whether to vote for it.

Ms Walley: While my right hon. Friend has been speaking, has she noticed that some Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Come Valley (Mr. Riddick), seem not to have known the facts? Can the Government have kept the information away from their Back Benchers?

Mrs. Beckett: Judging by the expressions on the laces opposite, I believe that my hon. Friend is right, and that the information was kept from Conservative Members. That

demonstrates, more perfectly than any words of mine could, why scrutiny of legislation is required in this place, why that is the purpose for which the House exists and the dangers to which hon. Members lay themselves open by behaving in such a cavalier fashion towards the House.
The proposal to guillotine the Bills in such a manner is shoddy and disreputable. During the debates on the Queen's Speech we referred to the insolence of office that shines through everything that the Government do. The problem both in the House and in the country is that the Administration believe that they can do anything that they like, and they do not even want to be bothered to come to the House to defend it. It is clear that deceit, incompetence and cowardice are the hallmarks of the Government.

Mr. James Paice: I was not surprised to hear the speech by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett); such speeches are de rigueur for a debate on a timetable motion. I welcome the proposal to allocate time on the two Bills. Indeed, I believe that that should be a standard procedure for all legislation and I am sorry that that aspect of the Jopling proposals seems to have been lost in the mists of time. Hon. Members on both sides of the House sometimes refer to the importance of freedom of speech in this place, but after a few years here I have come to the conclusion that much of that is a facade. In reality, debate has to be curtailed if minds are to be concentrated. One of the features of timetabled debates is a better quality of discussion; more succinct arguments are addressed to particular amendments and to the particular concerns of the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South did herself a disservice—not to mention causing offence to my hon. Friends and myself—by suggesting that Conservative Members were not aware of the absence of any help for the first four weeks. I am perfectly well aware of that and it is mentioned in much of the documentation that we have been sent by various organisations. It is indeed one of the matters that needs to be raised in the debate.
I remind myself that we are considering timetables for two Bills—the Social Security (Contributions) Bill as well as the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. We have heard the sham anger from the Labour party, which before the general election planned to remove the upper earnings limit altogether. That would have meant a massive increase in national insurance contributions. The Labour party derides restraints on the time allowed for debate, yet if it had had its way many such issues would not even come before the House, because Labour would have handed the powers over to the European Community and the House would not have had the power to debate them.
The anger is a sham, coming from the party that has handed social policy-making to a commission, an outside body. That body is now—believe it or not—coming up with one or two sensible ideas, such as questioning the universality of child benefit. I wonder whether that idea will quickly be buried deep in the holes of Walworth road.

Mr. Enright: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that, because one pursues a certain European policy, the House cannot debate such matters? If so, he fundamentally misunderstands how the Community works—and, indeed, how the House works.

Mr. Paice: Outside the Chamber the hon. Gentleman and I are hon. Friends and he knows from our lengthy discussions that there is a difference between debate and constructive debate. We can debate European measures until the cows come home, but we cannot necessarily amend them. If the Labour party had signed up to the social chapter, as it was pledged to do, legislation relating to many issues would be agreed by majority voting in the Council of Ministers. We could debate their decisions for as long as we liked, but, after such scrutiny, we would have no power to change them. That very point was stressed by the right hon. Member for Derby, South.

Mr. Terry Rooney: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Single European Act or the social chapter has been more damaging to the concept of subsidiarity?

Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the social chapter has not even come into existence—

Mr. Rooney: Yes, it has. The hon. Gentleman does not even know that.

Mr. Paice: It is highly questionable to argue that subsidiarity is damaging the country. The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that the Labour party did all that it possibly could to obstruct the progress of the concept of subsidiarity by obstructing the passage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill—the Maastricht Bill—through the House. If the Labour party had had its way, subsidiarity would not be an option, because of its obstruction of the Maastricht Bill.
The debate relates to the time allocated to two important, but small Bills. Those Bills will be considered after the House has had six days of debate on the Budget and, in the case of the social security contributions, five days of debate on the March Budget, when the I per cent, increase in national insurance contributions was proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont).

Mr. lain Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security came to the House the day after the Chancellor's Budget speech to announce the full details and implementation of the changes relating to social security? That was an opportunity for every hon. Member to take apart the proposals.

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A statement offers another opportunity to hon. Members to question a Minister on whatever issue.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the hon. Gentleman telling us that he is not aware of the difference between the questions put after a statement and the examination of a Bill?

Mr. Paice: Of course I am well aware of that difference, but a statement offers a further opportunity to hon. Members to understand exactly what is proposed. That information helps hon. Members to form their arguments on a particular matters. The ability to obtain information also counters the point made by the right hon. Member for Derby, South, who suggested that Conservative Members are unaware of the full implications of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. That is utter nonsense.
The timetable motion allocates a full day for the consideration of each of the Bills. In addition, today's debate offers another three hours in which hon. Members can, as is the tradition, speak about the Bill's contents.

Mr. Dewar: That is wrong.

Mr. Paice: That is the tradition behind timetable motions.
We are talking about one Bill with three substantive clauses and another with two substantive clauses. Both relate largely to a matter of principle.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South was right to draw attention to the implications for small businesses of the proposed changes in the Statutory Sick Pay Bill relating to the first four weeks during which an employee is ill. No doubt we will have ample opportunity to table amendments to that proposal and I am sure that it will be discussed many times.
The Social Security (Contributions) Bill concerns a matter of principle. Hon. Members are either for or against the 1 per cent. rise in national insurance contributions. There is no need to provide a great deal of time for hon. Members to table amendments to that Bill.
Given the size of the two Bills, I believe that two full days of debate offer ample time to hon. Members to make short, succinct contributions that get to grips with the issues. That is the way in which all debates should be handled. I strongly support the motion.

Mr. Terry Rooney: I have been a Member of the House for just over three years and the one thing that I have learnt rapidly is that it behoves every hon. Member to read the representations that he or she receives, because they enlighten us about the implications of legislation.
I have received 57 letters from those running small businesses and 16 from those running large businesses in my constituency—yes, there are still 16 large businesses left there. Those people have explained the true implications of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill not only for their businesses but for their employees. Just today I received letters recording even more concern from the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors—organisations not noted for their donations to the Labour party.
The Leader of the House said that the Department of Social Security and its internal organisation had to get documents out in February. I wonder what happened—obviously it was before my time—when national insurance contributions were increased in previous March Budgets. Those contributions stood at 6 per cent. in 1979 and had increased to 9 per cent. before the current proposals. How was it possible for a change to be made in a March Budget and then introduced by 1 April without the aid of a guillotine motion? Now, with four months to play with, the Government have introduced such a guillotine.

Mr. Newton: I specifically acknowledged in my speech that it is not impossible to do things at other times of the year. Announcements about national insurance contributions that were made in March were not implemented in April, because it was not practicable to do so, and were normally implemented in October. Over the years, the


business community found it extremely inconvenient to make national insurance changes and all that went with them twice a year.

Mr. Rooney: I accept that explanation from the Leader of the House, but no doubt others will challenge it. [Laughter.] I am glad that hon. Members find that funny.
The Government have made great play in recent times of the need to deregulate businesses. They have not, however, introduced much legislation to that effect. This week, however, we will debate the Statutory Sick Pay Bill for a maximum of six hours. But that Bill raises vital questions about exemption days and qualifying days. Following the decision last week, I wonder whether Sunday will become a qualifying day. What about the possible need for self-certification?
All those matters are relevant to the implementation of the legislation, but they are not mentioned in it. No doubt at some time in the future loads and loads of regulations governing that legislation will be tabled—as they will concerning the Child Support Agency—but it will not be possible to amend them. By then the damage will have been done and the costs incurred and people will have suffered.
The Statutory Sick Pay Bill represents a further betrayal of the promises made to employers when statutory sick pay was introduced and made the responsibility of management. Businesses were then told that 100 per cent. of the costs would be reimbursed and no one would lose out. I am reminded of the promises made in 1982 to local government when housing benefit management was transferred from the Department of Social Security to local authorities. Those promises came to nothing and council tax payers have had to bear the burden of tens of millions of pounds of lost revenue.
When the amount of sick pay rebate was reduced from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent., with a corresponding reduction in employers' national insurance contributions, that reduction was not extended to local authorities. In other words, local authorities have suffered a 20 per cent. cut in the amount reimbursed to them and it has not been offset by a reduction in their national insurance contributions. Will local authorities be similarly excluded from the terms of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill? If so, we should be told of the consequences for council tax payers, who will be expected to carry an additional financial burden. That is another issue that is worthy of scrutiny and amendment.
Two years ago we discussed a similarly so-called short Bill of two or three clauses. We were told that the House need not waste any time on it. It effectively gave people bribes to opt out of the state earnings-related pension scheme—SERPS—into personal pension plans. In the past week we have seen stories of hundreds of thousands of people whose cases are being investigated because they are being ripped off by shady insurance salesmen, and their personal pensions for the future are in question. That is the danger of chasing something through the House in a short space of time when dealing with major implications for people's personal future, security and welfare.
Much has been made of the fact that the Bills were mentioned in the Queen's speech and in the Budget statement. It is worth drawing attention to two points to do with the Budget speech, which was one of the shortest in many years even though it embraced the annual public expenditure statement. Only as the days have gone by have

we started to see what was really in the Budget documents and not in the Chancellor's speech. Not least, we now find that not all pensioners will get the full amount. If they are on a reduced pension, they get reduced compensation for their VAT.
It has still not been admitted anywhere that, as well as reducing the job seeker's allowance from 12 to six months, the Government have abolished the dependant's allowance, which was previously payable with unemployment benefit. That has not been mentioned in the House. It has not been spoken about by any Minister. I suspect that it has not been admitted to the Government Back Benches. One has to get down into the paperwork to find that information.
The implications of the Bill are horrendous, covering as they do some 26 million people in work in hundreds of thousands of companies. Their prosperity, viability and profitability are at risk. With that there is a risk of higher unemployment. The Bills are so serious as to deserve much more than six hours of debate. I think that this is a stupid guillotine. It is totally unnecessary and should therefore be opposed.

Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this short debate. I shall say at once that I support the measure. I believe that the guillotine is perfectly acceptable and that, important though they are, the issues that arise out of the debate are perfectly capable of being debated within the time span allowed and being given proper scrutiny. The Bill has implications for health—it makes a major contribution to health—and the competitiveness of industry. Those points have not been dwelt on at all by the Opposition, who seem to show little interest in them.
On statutory sick pay, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was at her most high-minded when she opened the debate, talking about a measure that had major implications for British workers and businesses. One thing that I have learnt in this place is to be very suspicious of politicians when they are being excessively high-minded. In the case of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill it is instructive to look at the history of the matter and consider what may be the real reasons and motives that lie behind the sudden outburst of interest in the matter among Labour Members.
The proposal first came before the House in the Budget statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, who clearly announced what the Government's intention was going to be in respect of statutory sick pay. As I said to the hon. Member for Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), although the Leader of the Opposition mentioned many other things in his response to the Budget debate, he did not see fit to mention at all the change in statutory sick pay, which had been announced by my right hon. and learned Friend.
The matter came before the House again the following day, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security made his statement and went into more detail. The hon. Member for Garscadden, on behalf of the Opposition, responded on that occasion. It is right that he raised the question of statutory sick pay in his response to my right hon. Friend. It was inevitable that he would do so, because it was the subject that he was covering.


I think that the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss from me if I say that, in my experience of him, he is a stickler for detail. He is certainly assiduous in his attention to detail. There are times when he may regret going into as much detail as he does. In future, perhaps because of certain things that have happened here, we may have somewhat less detail from him. He took up the question of statutory sick pay with my right hon. Friend, but made no mention of a point made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South about small businesses.
The hon. Gentleman did not pick up that point, although it was clear in the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of state, who explained what his proposals were going to be with the offsetting change in national insurance contributions and the protection that is being given to small businesses. Although the hon. Gentleman responded, he did not even query what the effect would be on small businesses let alone take up the point of the right hon. Member for Derby, South—so much for the hon. Gentleman's sudden concern for the fate of small business men.
If the hon. Gentleman would like the answer to the question that was posed by the right hon. Member for Derby, South, it is quite wrong to say that there is no compensation for small business men. They enjoy the national insurance contribution reduction in the same way as all other business men do. In addition, they get the protection of having 100 per cent. of the statutory sick pay rebated to them after four weeks of sickness. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) says, "After four weeks," but if he knows about this, he will know that the present limit is six weeks and that it has been reduced to four weeks and is being made at 100 per cent. rather than at the rate of 80 per cent.

Mr. Jenkin: Is it not rather extraordinary that the shadow Leader of the House should make a great revelation about a particular aspect of the small business relief as though she had stumbled on it by accident hidden in some dark recess? If she were to look at the Library brief on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, she will find that it is there, under the heading "New Small Employers' Relief".

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: When was it published?

Mr. Jenkin: Obviously it was published in time for this debate. It would have been published in time for the debate on Second Reading and the Committee stage.
Is it not extraordinary that the official Opposition should need to make such bogus points about the measure?

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is right. There have been no secret documents or secret inquiries made. If Opposition Members had an interest in the matter and took the time and trouble to study and listen carefully to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security said on 1 December, they would have seen that the proposals were clearly set out there. Nothing new has come out since. The proposals were there. The difference is that Opposition Members—Labour and Liberal Democrats—were not interested at that stage in small businesses. They did not even have the interest to express any view about small businesses in their response to that debate.
The story gets worse from there on, because after that debate we had days of debate on the Budget—a specially extended debate. Shadow spokesmen on health made no mention of the matter, although it has major implications for health. A shadow spokesman on employment made no mention of statutory sick pay. In fact, no other Members on the Opposition Front Bench mentioned it, apart from the hon. Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Peckham (Ms Harman), who made the most passing remark about the cost being passed on to employers, without taking any account of the offset in national insurance contributions. That was clearly an omission. I shall leave hon. Members to judge whether it was an intentional or negligent omission in each case.
Opposition Front Bench Members were hardly being egged on by a tremendous outburst of interest and enthusiasm from their hon. Friends on the Back Benches, because so far as I can see—in my humble research into the matter—there were 34 speeches from Opposition Members in that long debate. Only two of those speeches mentioned statutory sick pay. They did not take up the point that was made today by the right hon. Member for Derby, South. Yet all the proposals were known. They were all there.
If Opposition Members had not been in the Chamber to hear the announcements in the Budget speech or my right hon. Friend's statement, they could have looked it up in Hansard. It was all there, yet there was no interest ando inquiries were made. I am driven to the conclusion that there is something strange going on with the Opposition. Why is there such a sudden outburst of enthusiasm for this Bill? What is the real reason for the sudden launching of guerrilla warfare? It is not for me to speculate on that.

Mr. Denham: I have been listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. On a number of occasions, he has suggested that the arrangements that would apply to small businesses as a result of the Budget statement and the uprating statement made by the Secretary of State for Social Security were perfectly clear. I have a copy of the Library briefing on the social security uprating statement and I cannot find anywhere in it anything which says that small employers will have to foot 100 per cent. of the bill for the first four weeks. Why is the hon. Gentleman so confident that that should have been crystal clear to the House?

Mr. Clappison: I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to the second half of column 1037. If he applies his mind to it, he will see that it sets out the matter clearly.
Part of my reason for taking part in the debate was so that I could strongly endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) about the timetabling of Bills and the scrutiny of legislation. In my short experience, I have taken part in the deliberations on a long Bill, with a number of clauses. My experience of the debates on the Education Bill led me to the conclusion that the quality of debate and of scrutiny are much improved by timetabling so that there can be constructive and intelligent debate without the Opposition trying to delay and procrastinate, using base parliamentary tactics to obstruct the passage of Bills.
I see the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) laugh. I think he knows all too well what I am getting at. My experience also led me to the conclusion that the Opposition's motives for what they were doing were often different from what they claimed.

Mr. Enright: Does the hon. Gentleman also recall that Conservative Members, in what was a long-sitting Committee considering the Education Bill, refused to speak and give us the benefit, or otherwise, of their thoughts? That was a great shame, because it meant that we had to examine the Bill from the Conservative angle as well as from our own.

Mr. Clappison: I enjoyed the company of the hon. Gentleman on that Committee. I think that he will remember that I made my own contributions to the debate, but I found it difficult to speak for as long and to as little effect as the hon. Gentleman.
The Bill deals with important issues such as improving the health of the work force, improving managements' administration of sick time and improving efficiency. I remind the Opposition that we have the second worst rate of absenteeism in the European Community. It is an important and straightforward Bill, which will create incentives to encourage management to manage more efficiently and to deal with sick time, while at the same time compensating business.
Those are important points, but they can be dealt with in short order. As to the point made by the Opposition about small businesses, any small business man would greet that with the hollowest of laughs, given the massive programme of regulation to which the Opposition are prepared to sign up in the name of socialism under the socialist programme for the European parliamentary elections.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has got it all wrong if he thinks that the issue that we are debating, particularly when we are debating it under a guillotine, has anything to do with the merits or demerits of timetabling. I am happy to engage in discussions about timetabling, although that is difficult—much more difficult for an Opposition Member than a Government Member, but the hon. Gentleman may not always be sitting on the Government Benches. The House must deal with timetabling properly, but the Leader of the House does not make it any easier to deal objectively with timetabling when he treats us in this way.
We are faced with the most draconian guillotine that I have ever seen since I came to the House in 1983. As I said in the short debate on the money resolution last night, those on the Government Front Bench have to be careful about the precedents they set, because precedents can be used by anybody and everybody. If the House slips into a process of guillotining Bills before Second Reading, that will be another big step down the wrong slippery slope towards getting the procedures of the House and the rules and conventions disrupted. That may encourage others to emulate the Government's example, but it would not be sensible for the democratic process of the House.
I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), who said that the Bill has only five clauses. I do not know where he was last year, but let me draw his attention to the fact that the Maastricht Bill had only five or six clauses. He said that there are one or two important issues of principle here, and so there are. However, £1,900 million-worth of expenditure is involved. The Bills were published only a few days ago, and are scant on the detail of some of the

secondary enabling legislation. I agree that there are only five clauses, and that must be taken into account when we consider how many hours to allocate to them.
This is the most draconian timetable that I have come across, and I was caught by that. I gave the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East an example. In good faith, I tabled a reasoned amendment against Second Reading —the House will know that, because it is on the Order Paper—of the Social Security Bill on Thursday. Were that amendment to be selected by the Chair—that is at the discretion of the Chair—the 15 minutes on the vote would be taken off the total time available for the Bill.
That puts constraints on hon. Members who have a bona fide interest in trying to argue a case for a constructive and positive Second Reading amendment. If the amendment were selected, I would have to decide whether a vote on it would be the best use of the time of the House. That is a difficult position in which to put hon. Members when they are debating such important issues.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Is not one of the Government's dilemmas the fact that the Opposition's Whips Office is often unable to deliver its agreements made through the usual channels? The Whips go around saying, "We're not voting on this, brother," but hon. Gentlemen such as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) force Divisions, taking up 20 minutes every time they do so.
I was in the engineering union, and I would tell the hon. Member for Bolsover, had he been sitting in his place now —we are not being televised live, so he is not here—that he does not pull his weight. He has a free ride. He never serves on Committees, while we are upstairs doing the work. If the Labour party cannot control its members, we shall continue to have problems.

Mrs. Dunwoody: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth followed the habit of the House and informed my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover that he intended to attack him in the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): That is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Lady is right: that is the convention.

Mr. Kirkwood: I know the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), and I suspect that he can look after himself. That intervention, helpful or otherwise, should not have been addressed to me. I have already offered to act as bookie's runner between the two Front Benches. For a small fee, I am anybody's. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We all have a price. The sooner that the two Front-Bench teams get their act together, the happier we shall all be. If that happens before Christmas, nobody will be happier than me.
My experience of the past 10 years has shown me that guillotine debates get further and further away from the purpose on which they are supposed to be focused—looking at the details of the timetabling motion. I should be interested—I bet any money that he does not—if the Leader of the House could explain why he thinks it necessary to put in some of the verbiage in the guillotine motion.
Paragraph 1(5) says:
No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.


I will give the Leader of the House a £5 note for every time that has happened in the past 10 years. Paragraph 7 deals with supplemental orders, and paragraph 8, on saving, means that the debate can end sooner than is set out in the guillotine motion. As for paragraph 9, it would be fascinating to know what figment of the parliamentary draftsman's fantastic imagination made him think that it was necessary to have that paragraph in the motion. Those paragraphs are extraneous, irrelevant and totally unnecessary.
Why do we allow Ministers to table timetable motions that no one inside the House understands, let alone anyone outside the House? I spent the morning with the Clerks —and very helpful they were too—but how many other hon. Members spend time with the Clerks? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is an honourable exception.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Member knows that I have huge respect for him. He will realise that these things are drafted by incredibly clever parliamentary draftsmen, and it would probably be better if I sought advice before answering the hon. Gentleman's question. It is not unknown for hon. Members to cause difficulties in the procedure on timetable business—for example, by moving other debateable motions that consume the time available. They then complain that a Bill has not been debated. We are trying to ensure that the hon. Gentleman is able to make the constructive comments that he always does.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is a monstrous attack on the hon. Member for Garscadden. I am sure that he would not do anything of the kind.

Mr. Newton: It is not the hon. Member for Garscadden that I have in mind. Wild horses would not force me to say who it is.

Mr. Kirkwood: Anyone who looks at the guillotine motion, and asks the Clerks what it is all about, will see that, in paragraphs 4 and 5, the Leader of the House has taken sensible powers because he knows that absent friends could create difficulties.
I am not saying that guillotine motions do not have to contain certain necessary elements. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 make some sense in relation to the Government's position, but all the other rubbish is completely phantasmagorical nonsense and should not be there. May I return the compliment and say that the Leader of the House is a man for whom I have enormous respect, and I know that he is not given to this kind of thing.
If the Government are to resort to guillotine motions in future, there should be a sensible Standing Order that sets out the elements that a proper guillotine motion could and should contain. The motion would then come before the House as a numbered Standing Order. Everyone would then know exactly what the Government were trying to do by the motion.
I bet my bottom dollar that no more than three or four hon. Members in the Chamber could give a passable explanation of the detail of the contents of today's motion.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Member is missing the point. The Government's decision to put down a guillotine is not to make things clear to the House or the electorate.

Their express purpose is to hide what they are trying to do. The hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the wording is to miss the whole import of the Government's reasoning.

Mr. Kirkwood: I stand suitably chastened. I was trying to explain from the House's point of view; I was not trying to make party political capital. The hon. Lady is right: some chicanery is going on to cover the Government's embarrassment. It does not make sense for the House to discuss motions that are unintelligible to everyone, including experts.
The Leader of the House's point about the 6 April deadline is vitiated, because everyone knows that the Government need to give proper notice. That deadline has always been the point at which administrative changes should take effect. Why did he not start last spring to contrive a parliamentary framework in which we could have a more sensible debate on this matter? He has got himself boxed in and has had to bring forward this legislation, which is of limited but important scope, in short order. He did not make a strong point when he claimed that it has been known for months that we needed to do this. He should have brought forward legislation about the national insurance contribution changes earlier.
The Statutory Sick Pay Bill is a very important piece of legislation, particularly in the financial effects that it will have on small businesses. I talk to small business men more than I do to the larger organisations that represent industry, and they have told me that they feel that, over the past five years or so, the Government have let them down.
They were given commitments and undertakings when the old national insurance contributory benefit of sick pay, which used to be paid at the 100 per cent. rate, was changed. They were assured that there would be no difficulties with the changes, and that they could rely on the Government's word that they would not lose.
That amount has now been reduced, particularly in respect of small businesses, and those businesses now face financial difficulties. A business that employs eight to 10 men and has employees off sick for two or three weeks, especially if two or three of them are off at the same time, will have no cover, and will have difficulties with its cash flow.
The Bill is not only about the adverse financial effects but will strike at the root of the relationship that small businesses should have with the Government of the day. Small business men feel that they have been let down. Most of the representations that I have received refer more to that relationship than to the cash flow and other implications of statutory sick pay.
Small businesses have lost confidence that they will be treated reasonably and fairly by the Government, because of the changes and the way that they have been made.

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will say more about this when he winds up, but the point that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire has made about small businesses—whatever representations may have been made to him—needs to be studied more carefully.
I have a table of the position of small firms with five employees, with an average sickness record, earning £90, £130, £190, £250 and £340. In each and every case, on average sickness records, those firms will be better off. Set against what they may have to find for the odd few weeks


in particular sickness cases, there will be reductions for their employees' weekly national insurance contributions, week in and week out, for 52 weeks.

Mr. Kirkwood: That will come out in the wash. Those initial assessments may have been made on a false prospectus. Small business men have told me that they are worried about the losses they will incur, but they are more worried about the way they are being treated. That is something that the Government should attend to. If confidence in the partnership between small businesses and the Government is not maintained, it bodes ill for the future of our country.
The changes that have been introduced to statutory sick pay for small businesses are very difficult, if not impossible, to determine. It is not possible to work out the detailed effects of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill from its content, because of its enabling nature and because it increases the power of Ministers to table legislation.
The House must be resistant, strong and robust in objecting to Ministers' coming to the House day after day, week after week, to ask for more powers. In many instances, negative resolutions are involved: hon. Members must pray against the orders involved, and sometimes even that does not enable us to debate them. Indeed, securing debates has become increasingly difficult recently. That is bad for the democratic process, and I believe that people outside are already becoming disillusioned with the way in which we do our business.
As I have explained, I consider guillotine motions such as this unintelligible and inexplicable, and I believe that the Leader of the House has produced little justification for them in his rationale. Although such motions can be justified in certain circumstances, I consider this one completely unjustifiable. The House should reject it.

Mr. Graham Riddick: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). As with most Liberal Democrats, butter would not melt in his mouth. At one point he cracked a little joke, saying that for a small fee he was anybody's; the joke would have had a greater ring of truth had the hon. Gentleman said that he was anybody's —that he would do and say anything—for a constituent's vote. As we know, the Liberal Democrats are happy to say one thing on one doorstep, and the opposite on the next. But you will be pleased to learn, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall say no more about the Liberal Democrats this evening.
Today's guillotine motion has an interesting backdrop —the first unified Budget. We should also bear in mind the fact that one of the Bills that we are discussing is very much part of the Government's overall economic policy. The motion has supposedly led to the suspension of cross-party co-operation in Parliament—the end of the so-called usual channels. I consider that something of a smokescreen: to some extent, I must take the blame for the ending of that cross-party co-operation.
Last Tuesday, I unveiled the incompetence of the Opposition by remarking, on a point of order, that they could have tabled an amendment to the Government's Budget motion, which would have allowed them to vote on the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel. Why did they not do that? Were they incompetent, or were they happy with the Chancellor's compensation package?

Mr. Alan Duncan: Both.

Mr. Riddick: That may be true. However, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who is seated on the Opposition Front Bench, gave the Government a helpful steer before the Budget had even been announced: he told us that 50p a week on pensions would do the trick. That was very good of him, and the Chancellor offered exactly that—but only in the first year; the compensation will become more generous in the second year. At the end of the process, single pensioners will be £1 a week better off than they would otherwise have been, and pensioner couples will be £1·40 a week better off.

Mr. Jim Dowd: rose—

Mr. Riddick: I am coming to the point; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me.
In fact, the Opposition should be happy with the compensation package. Why, then, are they ending cross-party co-operation? They tell us that it is because of the guillotine motion, but I want to expose the real reason. I believe that we must return to the "incompetence" argument. As I have said, the Opposition could have tabled an amendment to the Government's Budget motion on Tuesday, whose wording was the same as motions tabled by a Labour Government in 1977 and 1988—and, indeed, motions tabled by the Conservative Government throughout the 1980s. Lord Jenkins actually tabled such an amendment in 1983. The truth is that this time the Opposition simply got it wrong.
We also know that there has been an unholy row in the parliamentary Labour party, between the shadow Treasury team and the shadow Leader of the House, between the shadow Leader of the House and the Whips, and in the shadow Cabinet generally. Labour Members have tried to blame the Prime Minister for their own incompetence: I was able to expose that in my point of order last week.
Over the past few days, we have read a good deal in the press about how the Opposition will refuse to co-operate with the Government through the "usual channels". They say that that is because of the guillotine motion, but, as I have said, they are merely trying to cover up their own incompetence of last week. Moreover, there is a growing disenchantment on the Labour Back Benches with the performance of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) as Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a little too wide of the subject, which is the guillotine motion. I should be grateful if he would confine his remarks to it.

Mr. Riddick: I thought that you might pull me up at some stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was intending to apologise to Labour Members—and, indeed, Conservative Members—who may be inconvenienced by the fact that the usual channels are no longer working properly.
I believe that the guillotine motion could prove very helpful to Opposition Members. As we know, they do not have a very good voting record, and I think it will be beneficial for them to know when votes will take place: they will be able to ensure that they are in the House. Campaign Information Ltd. recently conducted a survey of hon. Members' voting records; it found that Conservative Members voted in 75 per cent. of all Divisions, while


Labour Members voted in 55 per cent. and Liberal Democrats in 62 per cent.—the record of the Liberal Democrats was slightly better than that of Labour.
As I pointed out today at Prime Minister's Question Time, the vast majority of Members of Parliament among the top 200 voters were Conservatives; only six were Labour Members. Modesty forbids me to make a big deal about the fact that I was in the top 100, coming 84th in the league table.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that I shall not have to intervene again to remind the hon. Gentleman that the House is debating the guillotine motion. He must confine his remarks to that.

Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to you for making that clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is that the guillotine motion will not merely help Conservative Members; it may help Opposition Members even more. It is they who seem to find difficulty in coming to the House to vote. I was going to congratulate the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on coming first in the Division league table, but he is not present. Perhaps one reason why he can spend so much time voting in the House is that he never spends any time sitting on Committees.

Mr. Dickens: He has not done so for years.

Mr. Riddick: Not since 1988, I believe. The hon. Gentleman is very embarrassed about it, but as he is not present to defend himself, I shall not say much more.
We have two short, simple Bills in front of us. The national insurance changes were announced in March, and we had a long debate on the Budget speech at that time. We have had another lengthy debate on the recent unified Budget for about five or six days, during which the Statutory Sick Pay Bill could have been raised at any time.
I do not want to see national insurance contributions increased at all. I do not want to see any taxes increased or see any tax allowances reduced, but we have a problem with the public sector borrowing requirement deficit. That is one crucial difference between Conservative and Labour Members—we do not like to increase taxation or national insurance contributions and Labour Members do.
Every Labour Government, from the first one in the early 1920s, have increased the basic rate of income tax. As Conservatives, we do not like increasing taxation or national insurance contributions, but, at the same time, we recognise that we must have sound public finance, and that is what the Social Security (Contributions) Bill is all about.
We have a PSBR deficit of some £50 billion. the Chancellor was skilful in his Budget, as he managed to increase revenue—the Social Security (Contributions) Bill was part of that process—and at the same time reduce public spending in a number of areas without harming the key services of health and education. The only message that I would like to get over to the Chancellor is that, now that we have a tighter fiscal situation, we need a looser monetary framework. I hope that we will achieve that in the near future, by a reduction in interest rates.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) intervened during the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and made reference to me.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Was my hon. Friend referring to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)? It is important that we know to whom he is referring as he makes his way through his speech.

Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I was referring to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North who intervened during the speech of the right hon. Member for Derby, South, and accused me of not understanding what was in the Bill in relation to small businesses having to pay sick pay for the first four weeks. The Chancellor made it crystal clear that the increased contributions that both large and small employers will have to make towards statutory sick pay will be more than offset by the reduction in employers' national insurance contributions. The figures suggest that small businesses will be net gainers under that process.
The Government should be encouraging all companies, especially small companies, to improve the sickness record of their own employees. The Bill will provide an additional incentive to businesses to ensure that the health and fitness of employees is maintained. That is an important principle, which I entirely support. The Statutory Sick Pay Bill will also mean that administration of sick pay should be simplified. The other benefit, to which I have already referred, is that small businesses should face a smaller burden as a result of the Bill, not a larger burden, as the right hon. Member for Derby, South said.
We have heard an awful lot of synthetic rage from Opposition Members, who say that they do not like the guillotine and that it is an outrage. They are deeply embarrassed by their own conduct, because they have made so little impact in the House for some time, and because they failed to table an amendment about VAT on fuel in the past week. That is why Labour Members have decided to cut off relations with the Government.
I do not expect that it will last long, because the Opposition will not be able to carry their own troops, judging from their poor voting record. That is the background to the debate, and that is why I am happy to support my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. John Hutton: It has often been my responsibility to follow the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick). I feel some sympathy for him on this occasion, because he obviously found himself without a prepared speech, but was nevertheless required to occupy an amount of time in the debate. It would be wrong to describe his remarks as anything resembling a speech. It was the familiar mumbo-jumbo and rhetoric that we often hear from Back-Bench Conservative Members who are instructed by their Whips to occupy time and speak in the Chamber.

Mr. Don Dixon: That is not so on the Labour Benches.

Mr. Hutton: As my hon. Friend says, Opposition Members do not find themselves in that situation.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley failed to address some of the substantive arguments that are relevant to the debate. The guillotine motion is an abuse of the majority power of the Conservative party. As I said to the Leader of the House, when a parliamentary Session has only just


begun, it is unprecedented for the Government to use their power to steamroller an allocation of time order through the House.
We are only four weeks into the parliamentary Session, and some of the proposed changes will have a significant effect on millions of people and on millions of small and large businesses. It is entirely appropriate under those circumstances for the House to spend more time discussing the proposals than the Government are seemingly prepared to tolerate.
An allocation of time order leads to bad law-making, because it denies hon. Members the chance to explore the wider aspects of Bills. References have been made to occasions on which an allocation of time order has been imposed, and its consequences have been spelt out.
I think especially of the recent legislation on the poll tax, which was an expensive fiasco that damaged the tax base, affected millions of people, and continues to do so, as there is some £2 billion unpaid poll tax still outstanding. That is the result of incompetence and poor management of business in the House, yet we are about to witness a further example of such mismanagement. We have also had time to reflect on the Criminal Justice Act 1991—another result of bad law-making.
The guillotine motion should be rejected also because it brings the House into some disrepute. We are elected as Members of the House of Commons to scrutinise legislation, especially legislation of tax-bearing dimension. The total money dealt with by these two Bills combined will run into billions of pounds—the money of ordinary taxpayers and small businesses.
I have been interested in the comments of Conservative Members about the effect of the Bill on small businesses. I do not believe that they have understood the full implications of the Bill in that area, and I hope that the debate will bring some of them out.
We cannot justify passing legislation in such a cack-handed and slipshod fashion to our constituents. Both Bills require further and more detailed scrutiny. It is not a legitimate argument for Conservative Members to say that there are few clauses in either Bill. That misses the point.
It is clear that, with the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, a host of complex regulations will be introduced by statutory instruments between now and the end of April. Those regulations will require detailed scrutiny as well, but as hon. Members know, we have limited and diminishing opportunities to subject those instruments to the fullest scrutiny.
The argument that we need spend only a short time on these Bills because they are short stems from a complete misunderstanding of the legislative process. If we need any reminder of that, hon. Members might reflect on the equally short Maastricht Bill which, rightly and properly, occupied many months on the Floor of the House.
The truth is that there is little constitutional propriety about presenting such a motion to the House at this time in the parliamentary Session. I asked the Leader of the House whether he could find a previous occasion when such an order had been presented. He failed to provide any illustration of such a motion, because there is none. That lack of information from the Leader of the House provides confirmation, if any is needed, of the inappropriate nature of this order.
As is often the case in our proceedings here, the reality is quite different. We are spending such a short time on the Bills because of their nature. Both are deeply unpopular. If

the full implications of both were properly understood outside the House, they would have a damaging impact on the Government's already abysmal opinion poll rating. If the Budget is so popular, why are we not being allowed more time to discuss these Bills, which, as hon. Members on both sides have recognised, are central to the Chancellor's Budget strategy?

Mr. Tony Marlow: May I illustrate a point to strengthen the case? Like me, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have received a great deal of correspondence and been involved in contact with fathers concerned about the activities of the Child Support Agency. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the detail of the activities of that agency was decided by order on the last day of the parliamentary Session, when hardly any Members of Parliament were present? These things should be debated and discussed and should be open for public debate. We get into a mess by passing measures quickly.

Mr. Hutton: Not for the first time, I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). He has made a telling point, and I hope that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who is on the Treasury Bench, has heard some of his comments. There is no doubt that that is a further illustration of some of the mistakes that we are making in our approach to law-making.
I believe that the real purpose of the guillotine motion is to silence debate, not to encourage it. The Government hope that, by doing that, they will ensure as few people as possible outside the House will understand and appreciate the damage they are doing to small businesses and ordinary taxpayers.
As I have said, the Bills are central to the Government's Budget strategy. The leader of the House confirmed that. The national insurance contributions Bill will hike up direct taxes. I wonder how many people who voted Conservative at the general election fully appreciated that they would be asked to pay an extra 1 per cent. on their national insurance contributions.
In that context, we must remember that the hike in the contributions in the form proposed by the Government is a regressive way of raising some extra revenue they need to cover the hole in the Government's public borrowing.

Mr. Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the requirement for the national insurance fund to balance, at least in part, is a long-established principle? Will he admit that that fund has no borrowing ability, and that therefore the Government have a duty to introduce the measures in the Bill?

Mr. Hutton: I do not accept any of the hon. Gentleman's points. He is trying to camouflage the real scale of the Government's financial incompetence by giving the national insurance hike a bogus rationality. None of his arguments stands up to close scrutiny.
The Government are in a deep hole on public spending, and they are using the national insurance contributions hike to close that down. As I have said, it is a regressive way to close that gap in the Government's public sector borrowing. It will particularly affect those on low incomes, and will result in an increase of £3·20 a week in national insurance contributions for all taxpayers.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) drew attention to the fact that the increase will be regressive. It will raise £300 million more than a


penny rise in income tax, precisely because national insurance contributions bite at a lower earnings level than income tax. If we look at the Bill in that context, it is clear that the guillotine motion has been introduced because of the Government's broken election promises.
The Statutory Sick Pay Bill reflects the other central strategy in the Government's Budget. In the national insurance Bill we have seen a hike in direct taxes—something that the Government said they would never do. The Bill is a further attack on the sick and disabled in our community. It is clear that it will have an adverse impact on small employers.
It is interesting to note that, when the Government last changed the rules on statutory sick pay in 1991, they did so with little or no consultation with the business community. When the National Audit Office looked into the effects of the last round of changes, it identified the fact that the Government were conducting an independent assessment of the impact of those changes.
That independently commissioned report has not yet been published. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister is prepared to let us know its findings. Opposition Members do not believe the Government's argument that the changes to statutory sick pay will have no impact on small employers. We believe that they will have a substantial and damaging impact.
The guillotine motion should be resisted, precisely because of the points to which the hon. Member for Northampton, North drew attention, and because it brings the House into disrepute. At this stage in the parliamentary cycle, there is no justification for this motion. It damages our credibility as effective law makers, and we should reject it.

Mr. Garnier: Given the line that the hon. Gentleman is taking, does he agree that the conduct of his colleagues during the final stages of the Railways Bill, when they blocked the Lobbies and so on, also brought the House into disrepute, and that those in glasshouses should not throw stones?

Mr. Hutton: I believe that on that occasion Opposition Members used tactics which were perfectly legitimate for a loyal Opposition, and I stick to that assessment. There was nothing improper or in breach of the Standing Orders of the House in the behaviour of Opposition Members on that occasion. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I am trying to finish my remarks, but I am finding it difficult because of the interventions.
This motion is unacceptable; hon. Members who care about the reputation of the House as a law-making institution should think carefully before supporting it.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the way in which he has pursued this measure. He has selected a constitutional innovation which was introduced by the Government under the present premiership—to guillotine Bills before we have even had Second Reading. It is an extraordinary development. It is to be deeply deplored and it is odious because it reduces the House to nothing.
I came here, having been elected by the citizens of Aldridge-Brownhills, with the thought that, when they had cause to be anxious about something, I might be able to contribute to the process of debate—the detailed scrutiny of legislation where appropriate. I do not know why my right hon. Friend has chosen to guillotine a Bill before Second Reading and before we have heard where, in the detail of the Bill, the argument may lie. That develops in Committee.
A great former Home Secretary, the Luther of Mole Valley, now Lord Baker, was confronted with a real menace when he introduced his famous appendum to British constitutional history. If the House recalls, the nation was assaulted by ravaging dogs on every street corner that threatened our welfare, life and liberty, and emergency action was required. The Luther of Mole Valley did not hesitate. The Churchill of our Front Bench required action this day. At the behest of the popular newspapers, the House scampered along, citing something that was not so—that the danger was so great that the House should consider all stages. He allowed some 11 or 12 hours to discuss that important measure.
When the motion is passed, as I have no doubt it will be, it will be the fifth time that the Government have used this constitutional innovation. It is outrageous. The purpose of the House, and its lifestream, is to consider legislation. I remind some of my hon. Friends that Second Reading is about principle. We may agree on the principle of, for instance, driving to Birmingham. Most of us would assume that we may argue about whether to take the M1 and M6 or the M40 and M6, but when I find that we go via Cornwall and Wales and end up in Dublin, having gone via Edinburgh, I may want to move an amendment suggesting that it would be more practical, expedient and economical to go down the M1 and M40. Those are legitimate reasons.
I object greatly to the Bills. The Statutory Sick Pay Bill introduces a massive change of principle and will have great consequences for many small businesses which, with their backs against the wall, see no sign of recovery. Their staff will be taxed and they will have to fund sick pay for the first four weeks. I have a view on that.
However, this constitutional outrage of always insisting on guillotines has become an instrument of the Executive. Will the House reflect on the figures, which I have gone through before? Between 1945 and 1975, 30 Bills were guillotined. That is an average of one a year, if it is worth while averaging such things.
Under the Labour Administration, there were five guillotines in an afternoon. I thought that that was wrong and I still think that it is wrong. I listened to Michael Foot, whose fundamental argument was that, because Labour had no majority, it was appropriate to impose a guillotine motion. I always found that argument to be fatuous. If a Government have not carried the sentiments of the country with them, they have no right to impose a guillotine motion. In any event, Labour introduced some 14 guillotine motions—the House will understand that I cite those figures from memory—but a transformation came in 1979. I believe that the fault lies in the Whips Office rather than at the heart of Government, but it has become a habit. The guillotine has been introduced as an instrument of the Executive to bludgeon through legislation.
With a majority of 100 in the second of her two Parliaments and a majority of 40 in her first, it took Mrs. Thatcher—or her business managers—58 guillotines to push through her business. That is an average of five a year.


We now have a nation at peace with itself, no less, and the Prime Minister's business managers require 18 guillotine motions in three years, thus increasing the average. That means that the Executive need not trouble itself overly with the House of Commons. I remind my hon. Friends of the difference between examining principle and examining detail, which are fundamental duties of the House.
I watched Mrs. Thatcher's premiership come to an end. The poll tax was driven through with guillotine motions in this place, including on the Lords amendments. Had Mrs. Thatcher's Government listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), we might have been able to overcome the principle. We might have been able to make the Bill work. But no, no—off with our heads. We were told that Parliament had had enough time on it. The matter so destabilised public opinion, and, eventually, the views of my friends and colleagues in the Tea Room, that Mrs. Thatcher's premiership came to an end.
It is important that the House discharge; its constitutional responsibilities, because we are not just an agent of Executive wish and whim. I may have overstated the case about my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley with his Dangerous Dogs Bill, but I have seen it before. On the football spectators legislation, the House was bludgeoned to create an Act of Parliament, no less, with all the nonsense associated with that. It hung cm the say-so of a third party—a judge outside the House. Although the House was cranked up to push the legislation through, ultimately the measure was snuffed out, not particularly by the wish of the House but by the judge's decision.
Finally, I wish to utter a note of caution. One of the major flags of the present Session is to be a deregulation Bill. We shall deregulate Acts of Parliament—matters that have been considered by the House—in a way that some of us will find deeply distasteful. I never wish to give, nor do I wish to see my fellow countrymen give, into the hands of any Minister of the Crown the ability to decide what is legislation and what is not. That is our business, transacted on behalf of the people of this country and our constituents. We may soon have handed over that opportunity because we have over-legislated and legislated too casually.
The record of the 15 years in which I have been a Member has become worse and worse. I beg the House to reject the concept that the guillotine motion is the instrument of Executive whim. The latest fantasy, whether it is a Dangerous Dogs Bill or a Football Spectators Bill, must not be driven through the House merely on the nod, in a truncated sitting, the duration of which can be added up in minutes. Small businesses and people whom I represent will be condemned in six hours to funding sick pay in a major change of principle and policy. That is worth proper scrutiny of the Bill's detail.
Ultimately, this country's check and balance are no longer here. They are in our courts and are called judicial review. We must stir ourselves up, remember who we are and what this House is. We wish all our Governments well because our prosperity, well-being and fate are in their hands, but that does not mean that we should abdicate our responsibilities and accept such absurdities. We have time to look at the matter properly.

Mr. John Denham: It is disconcerting to sit through such a debate hoping to do some damage to the Government and then hear far more damage done to their reputation by a Conservative Member. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has spoken with great conviction, not just on this issue but on abuses, spanning many years, of the ability of the House to scrutinise legislation properly. As a much newer Member, I find that there are lessons in what he has to say to this and any Government about how to handle our affairs.
I have listened with interest to the debate, but my mind has been dominated by a picture that flashed into it early in the proceedings. It was a picture of the office of the Leader of the House on the morning of 1 December, just as the champagne bubbles were finally beginning to pop after what was regarded as a successful Budget, which had not yet begun to come apart. It was the first unified Budget, which had been in preparation for 18 months, in which the machinery of government, the responsibilities of civil servants and the timetable of their work had all been changed.
The Leader of the House is asking us to believe that he was in his office on that morning when a civil servant put his head round the door and said, "Minister, we have suddenly realised that, to implement the Budget, you must guillotine the two key Bills before Christmas." I am sorry but I do not believe that, after 18 months' preparation for a unified Budget, it was not until the day after the Chancellor's speech that someone discovered that it would be difficult to get the Budget through the House in time for April.
I do not believe that the problem was not anticipated well before the Budget. I asked the Leader of the House earlier whether this would be an annual occurrence, but I shall have to look at the Official Report and read his answer, because I did not understand a word of it. He said neither yes nor no—he would have to look at it. All those problems, however, must have been anticipated in the planning stages of the first unified Budget.
No one could believe that, with the great weight of legal advice and procedural advice available to the Government, possible difficulties with implementing Budget legislation in time for April were not anticipated. The Government must have known that this problem might arise, and they consciously chose to approach the legislation in this draconian fashion, leaving hon. Members with far too little time to discuss the problems and issues properly.
It is interesting to note how, after the first euphoric 24 hours, the Budget has begun to unravel. I remember the Chancellor of the Exchequer claiming to be receiving support from business interests: from the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, the CBI and the National Farmers Union—the very organisations that have written to hon. Members in the past 24 hours opposing the guillotine and the measure that we are debating.
Some Conservative Members tried to have some fun at our expense earlier, asking why Front-Bench Opposition spokesmen did not raise these issues during the Budget debate. Why, those Members asked, did they not seize on them and highlight them? The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) informed me that the impact on small businesses, which will have to pay 100 per cent. of


statutory sick pay for the first four weeks, was perfectly clear from the statement made to the House on the uprating of benefits by the Secretary of State for Social Security. The hon. Gentleman referred me to column 1037. That column contains nothing relevant, but I assume that he meant 1038. There, the Secretary of State told the House:
From April next year, I propose to abolish reimbursement
of statutory sick pay
except to small employers … So far, we have been reimbursing 100 per cent. of statutory sick pay for absences of longer than six weeks. I shall start giving 100 per cent. help after four weeks." —[Official Report, 1 December 1993; Vol. 233, c. 1038.]
So that was it—nothing about employers beginning to have to make contributions in the first four weeks, when they pay only 20 per cent. now.
It is therefore surprising that business lobbies, most of the press and many Opposition Members did not realise that the right hon. Gentleman's weasel words would hammer small employers with charges that they do not pay at the moment? Of course it is not surprising. Conservative Members who pray in aid this statement in defence of the Government are being outrageous. Having studied the Secretary of State's words, I have no doubt that, should he lose his current job, he would have no difficulty in securing another—selling personal pension plans to members of occupational pension schemes. That is what I think of the degree of integrity exhibited by his statement. It was simply more evidence that every attempt has been made to obscure from the House and from the people outside it what the Government have in mind.
I have no doubt that the way in which the legislation would be taken through the House was planned well before hon. Members had had a chance to hear the Budget statement. These are serious matters, and not only for the small businesses that will be badly hit. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) talked about the average costs to small businesses, but that is not the point. If a business employs only five people and two of them are ill for a long time, that is not an average cost. It is a devastating cost—one that the business will not be able to meet.
Vital though they are, small businesses will not be the only ones affected. Millions of people who are looking for work will be equally affected. By coincidence, I received a letter in today's post from a constituent, a former shipyard worker aged 58 who cannot find employment. He suffers from a heart condition, but not badly enough to qualify for invalidity benefit under the current rules, let alone for incapacity benefit under the rules to be introduced in a year's time. His prospects of finding work are bad enough at the moment; what are his chances of getting a job when every employer who will ever interview him will look at his health record and decide that he is going to become, at some point, a 100 per cent. cost to the wages bill?
Three million other people are looking for work, and such employers will obviously take on those who have not been ill recently. The legislation will mean that thousands of people who are capable of work but who are not in perfect health will fall into the limbo between invalidity benefit and work: they cannot get work because they have poor health, but they cannot get benefits because they are

not judged sick enough to be unable to work. Yet the Government want to push this measure through in six hours.
A Conservative description of the Bill was that it was a mundane measure. Will it be a mundane measure for my 58-year-old constituent, who has had enough doors slammed in his face without this one being slammed in it, too?
Our insurance salesman, the Secretary of State for Social Security, spoke touchingly to the House in his benefits statement. Describing the impact of the legislation on employers, he said:
those who respond to the incentive to improve staff health will benefit even more."—[Official Report, 1 December 1993; Vol. 233, c. 1038.]
What a wonderful image that conjures up. One thinks of employers, in response to the new legislation, deciding to expand their occupational health service—perhaps installing a gym, like the one in the House, to keep members of staff fit. One imagines them screening all their employees to make sure that they never get sick, thereby reducing their sick pay bills. The House can believe that if it chooses, but it is not how employers will see the measure. It will not be an incentive to improving the health of their staff. Over time, they will merely begin screening out those whose health poses a danger of an increased pay bill.
For smaller businesses to which staff sickness can represent a crippling cost, the legislation will mean being caught both ways. They will not want to turn people away or to get rid of staff who have been unfortunate enough to be ill, but when they are looking at their balance sheets and deciding between that and bankruptcy, some will decide to shed staff. The Government are pushing such companies into this position in a matter of six hours. That is an abuse of Parliament. I have been here only a short time, but I cannot believe that that is a way to run the country.

Mr. Alan Duncan: I listened closely to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and before that to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Like the latter, I have a lasting faith in the paramount importance of parliamentary procedure, of Parliament itself and of the manner in which we scrutinise legislation. I suggest that my hon. Friend's impassioned pleas, although well directed in general, were misdirected in the context of the measures that we are debating today.
I have watched the proceedings of the House for well over 20 years. As a young teenager, spurred on by politics and wanting to be in this Chamber, I became interested in how the House of Commons works.
When I was between school and university, I watched the debate on the guillotine on the proposal to nationalise the shipbuilding industry. That guillotine caused absolute uproar and the then Opposition fought tooth and nail against the then Labour Government. I recall the battles in Committee led by my right hon. Friends the Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Bridgwater (Mr. King). The Conservative Opposition kept the Labour Government on a knife edge. The then Opposition fought against that guillotine for good reason. It was a good reason not only because they believed in what they were doing but because


what they were doing, they were doing well. I shall explain why that distinguishes their behaviour from that of today's Opposition.

Mr. John Hutton: Was that guillotine motion before or after the Bill's Second Reading?

Mr. Duncan: I readily admit that it was after the Bill's Second Reading, but that measure was different from the one that we are discussing today. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that the nature of the Opposition and their failure properly to scrutinise legislation whenever they have the chance irks him more than the guillotine motion.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend is wrong.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Duncan: I should be happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, but I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).

Mr. Marlow: We do not live in a perfect world. We should all know about every detail of legislation before we debate it but, as my hon. Friend knows, in reality, about 2 per cent. of us know what is happening at any one time. If a Bill is given a Second Reading before the guillotine motion, at least there is a tiny chance that an element of the House of Commons will know what is being put before it. If a Bill is guillotined before Second Reading, what chance does the legislature have of scrutinising it properly?

Mr. Duncan: Before my hon. Friend goes pop, may I say that most of what we are considering is a continuation of existing legislation rather than—as with the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977—completely new legislation.
We have witnessed synthetic rage from the Opposition —it is a cover-up on the part of the Labour party to disguise its problems. The Leader of the Opposition is at war not with us but with his own Whips. For evidence of that one need look no further than at the Opposition's attendance today to see that fewer than 30 Opposition Members were present to hear the speech of their deputy leader. There are now fewer than six of them present.

Mr. Enright: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that fact, because, when my right hon. Friend the deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House were making their speeches, there were twice as many Opposition Members as Conservative Members—I know that because I deliberately counted them. There are more Conservative Members than Opposition Members, so the percentage of Opposition Members present was huge compared to that of Conservative Members.

Mr. Duncan: There are moments when I will readily defer to a former schoolteacher, but counting the hon. Members now present suggests that the hon. Gentleman is heavily outnumbered.
I would rather have a good Opposition on whom the Government could more readily sharpen their blade. The arguments against the guillotine are not matched by the Labour party's efforts while in opposition. If all Labour Members were here more often and they had challenged the very life of the Government by their energy and procedural skill and had shown due diligence in their

scrutiny of legislation in the past, they might have begun to have a case against the timetable motion—but they did not do that.
I have been a member of two Standing Committees in the past year—those on the Finance Bill and the Railways Bill. I marvelled at the poor manner in which Opposition Members scrutinised the Finance Bill. I was appalled, as many were, by the fact that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) rarely even turned up for discussions on the Railways Bill. The Opposition's poor record of scrutiny constitutes no basis for challenging today's timetable motion.
The two Bills that we are discussing are each only two pages long. The Social Security (Contributions) Bill was announced in March and we have not heard much from the Opposition since then. Indeed, their silence in the intervening months has been deafening. In terms of its significance, the Bill ranks with many a clause in any Finance Bill, but it happens to require primary legislation. The principles behind it are long established and have been debated in the House many times before.
As for the national insurance fund, as Nye Bevan said in 1946, "There ain't no fund." As we all know, the national insurance fund is a pay-as-you go fund and contributions should, wherever possible, reflect the cost of the benefits being paid from it. The fund does not have borrowing powers; in order to make up any deficit, it requires a Treasury grant. The insurance fund should be paid by those who are in work, not by all taxpayers.
That principle is lost on the Opposition, as is evidenced by their wish to abolish the upper earnings limit for contributions. When the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) makes his wind-up speech, will he tell us why such a proposal to abolish the upper earnings limit is acceptable when it makes nonsense of the contributory principle, because it will not lead to any corresponding increase in benefit for those who are asked to contribute more to the fund? The Bill is a straightforward adjustment to a well-established system and is being timetabled with full justification.
The other two-page Bill is the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, which is also straightforward. It involves a rebalancing of the obligations and entitlements between small and large employers. Large employers will lose their right to recover 80 per cent. of statutory sick pay. They can afford to do so because they can generally insure themselves against such an occurrence. Smaller employers—and, because of the Bill, many more of them—ill be able to secure full reimbursement and for a greater amount.
Much of the system was set up by the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991, about which a House of Commons Library brief stated:
The Bill made rapid progress through the Commons with the Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading taking place on the Floor of the House".
The views on the rapid passage of that Bill do not match the outrage that we have heard about the Statutory Sick Pay Bill.
I share many of the opinions of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, but I believe that it is perfectly legitimate for the two short, straightforward Bills to be guillotined.

Mr. Peter Luff: Does my hon. Friend accept that, of the two measures, one received five days in


the House and the other six days in the course of this year's two Budgets? Does that not make the case for a guillotine before Second Reading so much stronger?

Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments.
The apparent rage of the Opposition is entirely false. As this week's figures clearly show, their attendance rate is hopeless. Their attention to detail is lamentable and their discipline appears to be non-existent. The day that they apply themselves properly to their parliamentary duty will be the day that I join them in the Lobby to oppose such a guillotine motion.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is not noted for his humility. He may be a clever person—I am in no position to judge—but I predict that he will not have a popular career in the House if he makes speeches of such arrogance and self-righteousness.
I shall put in short order the Opposition's reasons for objecting to the guillotine motion. The facts of the motion are brutal enough so there is no need for me to use extravagant language. First, we object because of the lack of consultation before the motion was tabled. There has been much talk about the breakdown in the usual channels. In a real and important sense, the usual channels broke down the day the guillotine motion appeared on the Order Paper. No attempt was made by the Department of Social Security—certainly as far as I know—to discuss or consult about the Bill's passage.
I make that point—and if I had the high standards of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, it might be thought that I was confessing a sin—because I do not think that, while I have been shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, anyone could say that I have taken an unreasonable attitude to the business of the House.
The Minister of State will remember when the House considered the 1992 Social Security Bill. I do not make any petty party political point, but that legislation was urgently needed because the national insurance fund was 20 per cent. short of the funds required to meet its obligations, and on the statute book there was a rather optimistic Government provision to stop any subvention by the Treasury to the fund. When I was approached about the Bill I took the view that it was not a contentious matter as we all wanted to ensure that money was available to pay out the various benefits and pensions. I readily agreed to taking all the stages on the Floor of the House in one day. I do not think that anyone can accuse the Opposition of always looking for trench warfare.
I especially regret what has happened in this case. When the Leader of the House spoke last Friday, in an unscheduled but useful debate, he said:
Despite what was said earlier, there is nothing particularly unusual about the motion, although I accept that the situation more usually arises when there has been agreement in the usual channels to deal with such things rapidly. That is not the background in this case."—[Official Report, 10 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 645.]
If we are talking of declarations of war, it is reasonable to ask the Minister to explain why that is not the background in this case. Why was there no attempt to reach agreement on how we might properly and decently deal with the

business? It would not necessarily have been difficult to reach agreement. I cannot predict what course the negotiations might have followed, but I take severe exception to the fact that no approach was made and there was no attempt to reach agreement.
Perhaps it is because I am now reaching the veteran stage, but I have a certain amount of sympathy with those who want agreed timetables for Bills. However, timetables imply agreement, and there is a great difference between a timetable and a guillotine motion. If there had been an attempt to timetable by agreement, such an accommodation might have been possible—but unfortunately that is not what happened. Instead, we were faced with a lack of consultation and the unusual appearance, in form at least, of a guillotine motion before Second Reading. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) also made that point.
I am well aware that all Government business managers can be driven to introduce guillotines. I did my little bit in contributing to the driving process in my earlier days in this place. I accept that, if there is an open-ended Committee stage, with ingenious and long-winded Members filling column after column of Hansard, it may reach a point where the Government, to preserve their business or even to protect the House, must introduce a guillotine motion. However, that is very different from doing so at this stage of a Bill.
I can speak only for myself, and I took the view that there had been no attempt to reach agreement. The appearance on the Order Paper of an unusual, severe and restrictive guillotine motion means government by diktat and government by fiat—something about which we were both entitled and had a duty to protest.

Mr. Garnier: For present purposes, I fully accept that the Opposition feel that the timetable motion is a constitutional abomination. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the conduct of his party during proceedings on the Railways Bill? Is not there something a little hollow about his hon. Friends' objections to the timetable motion on these Bills when during the proceedings on the Railways Bill Labour Back Benchers, aided and abetted by senior Members of the Opposition Whips Office, obstructed the Lobbies, locked the lavatories and inhibited the work of the Serjeant at Arms in clearing the Lobbies? In addition, the Opposition's Tellers miscounted the votes. Do I have the facts right or wrong?

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman's account of that incident is highly coloured. I certainly do not recognise the details that he described. In any case, there is no parallel between what happens under the pressure of a specific circumstance when a vote is called and the buttressing of an unfortunate constitutional precedent, which has been rightly criticised by Conservative Members. The view that we take of the one does not exculpate those responsible for the other. What we are now discussing is of much greater significance.
My second point is that the timetable motion is not only unusual but unreasonable. We are being allowed only six hours of debate. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) made the point that every time we vote, whether on Second Reading or during the truncated Committee stage, a quarter of an hour will be taken out of the six-hour allocation. That is a thoroughly unreasonable proposition.


The Leader of the House will remember the last time that we considered a statutory sick pay Bill in 1990. He opened the debate on that Bill, which was a direct parallel of the current Bill. In fact, it had three clauses, but in effect it had only one, whose purpose was to reduce the rebate from 107 per cent.—7 per cent. was for administrative expenses—to 80 per cent. The Hansard of that debate shows that we had a whole day for Second Reading because the Bill was considered to deal with a major issue. Indeed, the Front Bench speeches took one hour and 53 minutes. More than half the total time being allowed for Second Reading of the current Bill was spent on the two opening speeches on that Bill. Of that one hour and 53 minutes, the right hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to take one hour and 14 minutes.
I am not criticising the Leader of the House, who is not noted for being unnecessarily long-winded. The reason why he took one hour and 14 minutes on such a radical Bill, reducing the rebate from 100 to 80 per cent. as opposed to total abolition, was that he had to deal with an enormous number of interruptions from Conservative Members. The hon. Members for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls), for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman)—she is in her place—for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for Newark (Mr. Alexander) all expressed fundamental concern about the impact that the Bill would have in their constituencies. There was no doubt in their minds that it was a matter that had to be probed and examined in great detail and with genuine concern.
Indeed, the hon. Member for Lancaster made a good point with which I was unfamiliar, but which I suspect may arise again, about the impact of changes in the SSP scheme on agriculture. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's lengthy and complicated opening speech was dictated in part by the anxieties expressed in every part of the House.
Against that experience it is dangerous to suggest that the current Bill should go through the House with just three hours for Second Reading and three hours for Committee stage. That is especially so given that that is being done at a time in the parliamentary Session when one would not expect it to be necessary. I recognise that the Minister of State may say that the real villain of the piece is the unified Budget, that we are near the start of the new financial year and so on, but I do not think that that is any justification. We have a duty to do the job properly. The general argument needs to be stressed because I concede that this is a narrow and technical measure.

Mr. Marlow: Under normal procedure, a Bill has a Second Reading, which generates a debate in the country. That might lead to people suggesting amendments. After this week, after the guillotine and after the Bill has passed through its stages, if there is a debate in the country on what occasion might the House be able to amend the Bill?

Mr. Dewar: There may be some minor opportunity if the other place takes an interest in the measure. We had a substantial debate, lasting some hours, on Lords amendments to the previous statutory sick pay legislation. But it is very odd if we have to rely on the other place to create a rather limited and restricted opportunity to consider the consequences of what we do in the way that I have suggested. Apart from technical scrutiny—apart from the traditional role—we should be answering, reflecting, examining and analysing public concerns. That is an important point.
For the purposes of this debate, I am prepared to concede that the Government may have good answers to existing concerns, but the important point is how widespread those concerns are and how many of them are felt by organisations that would usually take the Government's word for it without question or argument. It may not be surprising that, for example, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has written to hon. Members expressing a great deal of anxiety, but, as hon. Members will be aware if they have been following their mail, the Federation of Small Businesses has specifically urged Members of Parliament to impose this restrictive procedure—the guillotine motion that we are considering.
The Forum of Private Business, which I seldom find myself quoting on anything, has expressed its concern and says:
Current proposals if implemented are likely to become the principal cause of a significant number of insolvencies.
That fear may be unfounded, but we shall in any case have mighty little opportunity to deal with it and, if the Minister is successful, to remove it, in the course of the six hours allocated to us. I can go on and mention the CBI and the Institute of Directors. All those organisations have expressed their concern about what is being done. It is an important matter and is clearly seen as such outside.
The idea of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that this was humdrum legislation—

Mr. Duncan: I did not say that.

Mr. Dewar: It must have been one of the hon. Gentleman's clones. What has happened on the Conservative Benches in the past year or two has been like an outbreak of garden gnomes in a residential suburb. One Conservative Member managed the thought that this was humdrum legislation and his mind was on higher things. All I can say is that it is clear that the mind of British industry, employers and employees, is firmly centred on these proposals and there are concerns.
After all, the Social Security (Contributions) Bill raises £1·9 billion for the Chancellor—about £300 million more than would be raised by putting 1p on the standard rate of income tax. Conservative Members may say that the breaking of election promises is somewhat devalued now as a cause for concern and anger, but it is worth reminding the House that that is exactly what this proposition amounts to.
In addition, the Statutory Sick Pay Bill transfers £750 billion as a burden on to British industry at a time when we are trying to keep it competitive. The Minister says, "Oh no, it is offset by reductions in employers' contributions. There is no need to worry." I want to look at the small print, but I shall have little opportunity to do so because—a point that I stress—the Bill does not deal with offsetting, so it is impossible to table amendments dealing with it.
The Minister says, "Oh, don't worry about that, there will be orders." Those orders will be debated in one and a half hours and cannot be amended, yet this is an essential part of a package that we are expected to accept as a whole. There is another question. If this is to be a neutral package, why are we putting through all these administrative changes to achieve neutrality? That brings us to the argument that was effectively dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham)—I


almost said Portsmouth, which I am sure would have been an unkind cut—about the impact on the employability of those with a sickness record.
Part of the defence is that this is a package, but that takes us on to the job seeker's allowance and incapacity benefit—into what seems to be a challenge to, or at least an undermining of, the contributory principle, because young people will be asked to pay more of the contributions bill but will receive less because of the other measures that the Government are introducing.
Those are major issues and major public concerns, yet there is to be no consultation and what I can fairly and properly describe as a vindictive timetable is being imposed, giving no real opportunity to reflect that anger or to probe the consequences, many of which are hidden in the Bill.
Take for example, the interesting change in the retirement age in the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, which is now defined as 65, which means that women between the ages of 60 and 65 will, presumably, be able to have statutory sick pay and draw their retirement pension. In case I am open to misinterpretation, I make it clear that I am not opposed to that, but it is important that we consider the knock-on effect and consequences of that.
Anyone who has considered the complicated litigation to which invalidity benefit has given rise, such as the case of Mrs. Rose Graham—I see the Minister flinch and I can well understand why—will realise that genuine complications may arise from a decision with which we shall have to live until 2020 but which will not be probed here or, as I understand it, in any other forum, at least in the House, and that is unfortunate.
I would welcome a constructive debate, but we shall not have that as a result of what has been given to us at the moment. I never wanted the Bills to have a long-drawn-out Committee stage. I would have been happy to talk turkey on that with the Government, but I object to the proceedings being guillotined as though I had been a bad boy, a recidivist with a record, before Second Reading is even reached.
This is a petty, damaging, corner-cutting measure. It is bad for the Opposition, but it is also bad for the Government and bad for Parliament. I recognise that this could be represented as just a spat, just a disagreement between the usual channels—friction at the interface between the Front Benches. But the dispute goes further than that. We are setting unfortunate precedents for the future health of our parliamentary system.
One or two people have said to me, "Why bother? The Government will do it anyway. They will bulldoze the Bills through the House and there is nothing that you can do about it." But it is not the job of a parliamentary Opposition to shrug resignedly and say, "So be it." We are right to protest. I recognise that the Government have the votes and—with one or two honourable exceptions—I have no doubt that their supporters will secure them a majority in the Lobby tonight.
In spite of that—this may be the eternal optimist in me —I feel that there should be, and perhaps will be, some right hon. and hon. Members who, when they go home tonight, will look back at the lack of justification, need or special circumstance in terms of a threat to the good government of the House or the preservation of the

Government's business. Those hon. Members may well want to question whether, if they have been through the Government Lobby, they have done a good night's work.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I start on a friendly and, I hope, conciliatory note by saying to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), sitting as he is beside the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), that, in my six and a half years dealing with social security, my dealings with him or his predecessor have always been friendly and reasonable in the extreme.
I am not familiar with the workings of the usual channels, but I am convinced that if we are to put the legislation on the statute book in good time for those outside the House who have to deal with its consequences and do it in an orderly and proper manner, time is of the essence.
I can understand the passion with which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) spoke. We have had similar exchanges on previous occasions. I understand that he has a fundamental philosophical objection to the use of timetable motions to put legislation through the House according to a particular timetable. I hope that I can persuade him, not least because he expressed concern for small businesses in his constituency, that it is essential that we get the legislation on to the statute book as soon as possible.

Mr. Enright: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment to finish the sentence, I shall give way. However, because of the time limit, I shall not give way frequently.
I hope that I can convince my hon. Friend that it is in the interests of precisely the small businesses for which he speaks, which are so close to his heart, to put the legislation on to the statute book as soon as possible.

Mr. Enright: Can the Minister explain to me—because I do not understand—why it would cause considerable administrative difficulties to come in for two or three days next week? It does not seem to me that two or three days matter very much.

Mr. Scott: That is not what we are discussing today. That matter could have been raised by the Opposition on other occasions. I seem to recall that it was raised by some hon. Members below the Gangway, but we are now working against the fact that the House will rise at the end of this week. We have to get the legislation through, not least in the interests of businesses—especially small businesses—which will have to deal with the consequences of what we intend to do.

Mr. Marlow: It has been said that this place is becoming something of a mockery and that our laws are made either by barter in Brussels or by guillotine in this House. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that he is a reasonable man. He said that he will agree a proper process to get the Bill through quickly. Can I suggest to my right hon. Friend that, in the interests of the reputation of the House and the Government, he takes the hon. Gentleman at his word and has a discussion with him? If the hon. Gentleman is pulling the wool over my right hon. Friend's eyes, let the public as a whole know. Give it a try.

Mr. Scott: We are too late for that approach. It certainly would not be for me to make that approach to the hon. Gentleman. I believe that it is right to get on with the business of translating into law the Bills to which the timetable motion applies so that businesses know where they are and will be able to implement properly the arrangements from next April.
Of course I am aware that there is anxiety among employers about the changes to statutory sick pay. I remind hon. Members and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that, when we were designing the pattern of provision in the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, we paid particular attention to the needs of small businesses. Full recompense will be given through reductions to national insurance contributions which will be made by order in due course.
That will more than compensate industry as a whole for the impact of the changes to SSP. The extent of the compensation will be in excess of £100 million a year of extra support for businesses. The arrangements have tilted that extra help specifically in the direction of small businesses to help them at a time when the economy is coming out of recession and embarking on what I believe will be a sustained recovery.
So employers will not be out of pocket. They will be in pocket under the statutory sick pay proposals and the proposal to introduce offsetting arrangements to reduce employers' national insurance contributions. All that will come into effect by next April. The Statutory Sick Pay Bill also contains other measures, some of which were mentioned in the debate. The hon. Member for Garscadden said that the Bill will extend the SSP scheme to working women over the age of 60. Obviously, we shall have to look at some of the details of that provision. However, I am sure that it will be widely welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It will enable us to comply with the equal treatment directive and it will be another step along the road of equality.
I wish to expand a little on the remarks that I made about small firms. The Budget as a whole was a considerable help to small businesses. The new arrangements for auditing, some of the arrangements for capital gains and, outside the impact of the Budget, the Government's efforts towards deregulation and lifting the burdens from businesses, especially small businesses, are some of the notable achievements of this Administration.
Let us look at the effect on small firms of the SSP legislation, if it reaches the statute book in its present form. A small firm—one with less than £20,000 of national insurance contributions—with five employees and an average sickness rate would gain an annual cost saving of £140 if the average earnings of the five employees were £90 a week, of £244 if the average earnings were £130 a week and of some £400 if the average earnings were £190 a week. We have deliberately sought to tilt in the direction of smaller businesses the help that will be available to offset the impact of the changes.
Anyone who has studied sickness absence rates in Britain knows that there is a great deal of scope for improvement if employers can be encouraged to seek such improvement. The interaction of the SSP provisions and the reductions in national insurance contribution will give employers that encouragement. The Audit Commission has done work in the London boroughs, which had a high level of absenteeism due to sickness. It found that most

boroughs could make management much more directly responsible for managing absence by giving senior management clear responsibilities and commitments.
The boroughs provided appropriate information and trained their managers to give more attention to staff welfare. As a result of those measures alone the average level of sickness absence fell from 17 days to 11·5 days a year. The average level of absence among manual workers was fewer than 15 days and absence among office staff also fell. Some ·11 million a year was saved. That has been reflected in other parts of our economy, including manufacturing industry. I have no doubt that, if people are given the right incentive, we have a clear possibility of vastly improving the sickness absence record of employees in Britain.
We need to have the Bill on the statute book by February. The legislation needs to receive Royal Assent well before it takes effect in April 1994. We must allow time for other measures such as the national insurance contributions re-rating order and the proposed enhancements to the statutory sick pay small employers' relief provisions to be introduced and debated in the House and in another place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security aims to leave plenty of time to deal with secondary legislation in the new year.

Mrs. Beckett: The Minister is explaining the information that is available to the House. I understand from the Public Accounts Committee report that a review has recently been carried out on the impact on businesses of the reduction in reimbursement from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. That review was completed in the summer. It has not been published. I have inquired why it has not been published and I have been told that it is in the hands of Ministers. As the Minister has made it clear that he is anxious that there should be proper debate, will he put the review in the Library before the debate tomorrow?

Mr. Scott: I cannot do that. The review will be published in the near future. I do not know the precise arrangements, but the document is in the pipeline for publication. Although I have not read it, I am advised that none of the findings support the arguments that have been made across the Floor of the House. I will have a look at the matter, but I do not think that we shall have it ready for the debate tomorrow. Perhaps before the secondary legislation is debated in the new year it might be possible to make such arrangements so that the House can at least be better informed.
We need secondary legislation to be debated so that we can fully bring the policy into effect. We must also allow the Contributions Agency to advise all employers of the changes that will affect them. Employers must be told by the end of February, if orderly introduction of the new arrangements is to take place and they are to make changes to their payrolls and administrative arrangements.
I hope that I have convinced the House that the urgency of putting the SSP provisions on to the statute book is well proven.
Following the passage of the Bills, affirmative instruments will be required. The re-rating order, statutory sick pay regulations for small employers' relief and the main social security uprating order and a number of associated instruments will be necessary.
I shall work backwards from 6 April, which is the date by which both Bills plus affirmative orders for contribution


re-rating and benefits uprating and consequental regulations need to be law. My right hon. Friend adopted that procedure, but, in order to assist the House, I shall do so in slightly more detail.
By mid-March we must lay consequential regulations to allow 21 days before the effective date of 6 April. Earlier in March the Lords will debate the affirmative orders. That means that we shall have to deal with them in February and must have the usual breaks between consideration in the two Houses.
It is essential for the Bill to pass all its stages in the House before we rise this weekend and hon. Members should be quite clear about the consequences if the motion fails. Depending on progress, the Department of Social Security will have to issue to employers in February some 1·2 million sets of new contribution tables with on the cover the endorsement, "Subject to parliamentary approval".
That will create a great deal of uncertainty for business and will generate many inquiries because employers will telephone the Contributions Agency to see when they can rely on the rates being certain. That would cause confusion, especially to small employers, who depend on advice from the Contributions Agency. The implications would be serious.
The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) asked about personal pensions. That issue is not directly related to the matter being considered today, but it is causing some concern. We are satisfied that the programme of action that was announced by the Securities and Investments Board is the appropriate way to tackle the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman. People should be assured that there is no need for current personal pension investors to take any precipitate action. Those who have questions about personal pensions should get in touch with their pension provider.
The Government expect remedies to be put in place for all investors who have been disadvantaged as a result of poor advice, and we are convinced that personal pensions are an excellent way of saving for income in retirement.
I shall now deal with other aspects of the legislation that will pass in due course. The legislation makes provision for national health service allocations. We have been advised that it is necessary to include new legislation about that so as to rectify the situation and to put beyond doubt the legal provisions on the calculation of the amount of national insurance that is passed to the national health service. That does not affect overall expenditure on the NHS, nor does it affect in any way entitlement to health service treatment. The Bill also includes provision affecting class 4 contributions and personal pensions. As the House knows, such pensions have been available for rather more than five years.
Few hon. Members are in any doubt about the reason for the debate. It has nothing to do with ensuring proper debate of the measures covered by the timetable motion. Effectively, each measure has one operative clause and the provision of six hours for each of the two Bills is ample. The debate has more to do with the Opposition's need to cover their incompetence in the Budget debate and, in particular, their sin of omission about VAT on fuel. The

Opposition's enthusiasm was demonstrated by the fact that when the debate opened there were but 12 Opposition Members in the House. It may be—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81.

The House divided Ayes 307, Noes 266.

Division No. 31]
[7.04 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aitken, Jonathan
Day, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dicks, Terry


Amess, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Ancram, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arbuthnot, James
Dover, Den


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Duncan, Alan


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Ashby, David
Dunn, Bob


Aspinwall, Jack
Durant, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Eggar, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bates, Michael
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bellingham, Henry
Evennett, David


Bendall, Vivian
Faber, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fabricant, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Booth, Hartley
Fishburn, Dudley


Boswell, Tim
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bowden, Andrew
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bowis, John
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brandreth, Gyles
French, Douglas


Brazier, Julian
Fry, Peter


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gallie, Phil


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gardiner, Sir George


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Garnier, Edward


Budgen, Nicholas
Gill, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Gillan, Cheryl


Burt, Alistair
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Butcher, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butler, Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butterfill, John
Gorst, John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carttiss, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Cash, William
Grylls, Sir Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Churchill, Mr
Hague, William


Clappison, James
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hanley, Jeremy


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hannam, Sir John


Coe, Sebastian
Hargreaves, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Harris, David


Congdon, David
Haselhurst, Alan


Conway, Derek
Hawkins, Nick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hawksley, Warren


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hayes, Jerry


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Heald, Oliver


Cormack, Patrick
Hendry, Charles


Couchman, James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Hicks, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)






Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Ottaway, Richard


Horam, John
Page, Richard


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Paice, James


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pawsey, James


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William(Corby)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rathbone, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Richards, Rod


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Riddick, Graham


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robathan, Andrew


Key, Robert
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sackville, Tom


Knox, Sir David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Legg, Barry
Shersby, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lidington, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Soames, Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spink, Dr Robert


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Sproat, Iain


Maclean, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, David
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stern, Michael


Major, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


Malone, Gerald
Streeter, Gary


Mans, Keith
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sykes, John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thomason, Roy


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Milligan, Stephen
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mills, Iain
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Townsend, Cyrill D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Moate, Sir Roger
Tracey, Richard


Monro, Sir Hector
Tredinnick, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trend, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Needham, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerald


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walden, George


Nicholls, Patrick
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Ward, John


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waterson, Nigel


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watts, John





Wells, Bowen
Wolfson, Mark


Whitney, Ray
Wood, Timothy


Whittingdale, John
Yeo, Tim


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilkinson, John



Willetts, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilshire, David
Mr David Lightbown and


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dobson, Frank


Adams, Mrs Irene
Donohoe, Brian H.


Ainger, Nick
Dowd, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Allen, Graham
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Eastham, Ken


Armstrong, Hilary
Enright, Derek


Ashton, Joe
Etherington, Bill


Austin-Walker, John
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Barnes, Harry
Fatchett, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Battle, John
Fisher, Mark


Bayley, Hugh
Flynn, Paul


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Foulkes, George


Bell, Stuart
Fraser, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fyfe, Maria


Bennett, Andrew F.
Gapes, Mike


Benton, Joe
Garrett, John


Berry, Dr. Roger
George, Bruce


Betts, Clive
Gerrard, Neil


Blair, Tony
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Blunkett, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Boateng, Paul
Godsiff, Roger


Boyes, Roland
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bradley, Keith
Gould, Bryan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Graham, Thomas


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Byers, Stephen
Grocott, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Gunnell, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Mike


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hanson, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hardy, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cann, Jamie
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clapham, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Home Robertson, John


Clelland, David
Hood, Jimmy


Coffey, Ann
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Connarty, Michael
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoyle, Doug


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cousins, Jim
Hutton, John


Cryer, Bob
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Ingram, Adam


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Janner, Greville


Darling, Alistair
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Denham, John
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dewar, Donald
Jowell, Tessa


Dixon, Don
Keen, Alan






Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Khabra, Piara S.
Radice, Giles


Kilfoyle, Peter
Randall, Stuart


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Raynsford, Nick


Kirkwood, Archy
Redmond, Martin


Leighton, Ron
Reid, Dr John


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rendel, David


Lewis, Terry
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Litherland, Robert
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Livingstone, Ken
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rogers, Allan


Loyden, Eddie
Rooker, Jeff


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rooney, Terry


McAllion, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Rowlands, Ted


McCartney, Ian
Ruddock, Joan


Macdonald, Calum
Salmond, Alex


McFall, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McGrady, Eddie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKelvey, William
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mackinlay, Andrew
Short, Clare


McLeish, Henry
Simpson, Alan


McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Madden, Max
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Mahon, Alice
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mandelson, Peter
Snape, Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Spearing, Nigel


Martlew, Eric
Spellar, John


Maxton, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Meacher, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Michael, Alun
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Stevenson, George


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Stott, Roger


Milburn, Alan
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Miller, Andrew
Straw, Jack


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morgan, Rhodri
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morley, Elliot
Tipping, Paddy


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Tyler, Paul


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wallace, James


Mudie, George
Walley, Joan


Mullin, Chris
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Murphy, Paul
Wareing, Robert N


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Watson, Mike


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Welsh, Andrew


O'Hara, Edward
Wicks, Malcolm


Olner, William
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Parry, Robert
Wilson, Brian


Patchett, Terry
Winnick, David


Pendry, Tom
Wise, Audrey


Pickthall, Colin
Worthington, Tony


Pike, Peter L.
Wray, Jimmy


Pope, Greg
Wright, Dr Tony


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tellers for the Noes:


Prescott, John
Mr. Alan Meale and


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. Gordon McMaster.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill and the Social Security (Contributions) Bill:
Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading: Statutory Sick Pay Bill
1.—(1) The proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill shall be completed at the sitting on 15th December.
(2) The proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement, and the

proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on Second Reading.
(3) When the Bill has been read a second time it shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any question being put and the Speaker shall forthwith leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(4) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(5) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.
Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading: Social Security

(Contributions) Bill

2.—(1) The proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading of the Social Security (Contributions) Bill shall be completed at the sitting on 16th December.
(2) The proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement, and the proceedings in Committee and on consideration and Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on Second Reading.
(3) When the Bill has been read a second time it shall notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any question being put and the Speaker shall forthwith leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(4) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(5) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Conclusion of proceedings

3.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings on either Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2.
(2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(4) If on 15th or 16th December a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock and proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before that time—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time; and
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Business Committee

4. Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Dilatory Motions

5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings on either Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra Time

6. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill at the sitting on 15th December and to proceedings on the Social Security (Contributions) Bill at the sitting on 16th December.

Supplemental orders

7.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(2) If at any sitting the House is adjourned, or if any sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this order.

Saving

8. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order.

Recommittal

9.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit either Bill to which this Order applies (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Fisheries

[Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 6272/92, relating to food hygiene on board fishing vessels; 5441/93, relating to European fisheries research; 4158/93, relating to fisheries: Spain and Portugal; 7047/93 relating to fisheries: Ireland; 9123/93, relating to fisheries: Spain and Portugal; 9285/93 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 10th December, relating to fishing licences; 10194/92, relating to industrial fisheries: North Sea and the Skagerrak and Kattegat; 11194/92, relating to industrial fisheries: North Sea and the Skagerrak and Kattegat; and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 19th February 1993, relating to fisheries: Norway.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Minister to move the motion I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9662/93, relating to guide prices for fishery products 1994, the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 9th December 1993 relating to total allowable catches and quotas for 1994, the Sixth Report from the Agriculture Committee of Session 1992-93 on the effects of conservation measures on the United Kingdom sea fishing industry (House of Commons Paper No. 620) and the Government's Response thereto contained in the Fifth Special Report from the Agriculture Committee of Session 1992-93 (House of Commons Paper No. 927); and supports the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom fishing industry for 1994 consistent with the requirements of conservation of fish stocks.
As the winter weather is upon us, it is timely that we should reflect for a moment on the hazardous nature of the fishing industry. Many fishermen run considerable risks with their own lives and, obviously, the livelihoods of their families when they proceed with what is a risky business. I know that, from time to time, the House has properly shown its deep concern when tragedies affect the fishing communities around our shores. I am always conscious of that concern when I deal with fishery matters.
This will be a wide-ranging debate on fisheries issues, and I should like to pay tribute to our fisheries inspectors, and to the Royal Navy, which, in all weathers, carries out its task of enforcing our common fisheries policy with great professionalism and skill. The House may be interested to know that it is my intention in the new year to visit one of Her Majesty's vessels on protection duty to learn more about the way in which it carries out its duties.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Minister has paid a tribute to the men who work so hard in the fisheries industry. Does he recall that this week is the third anniversary of the loss of six men from my constituency in the Premier disaster?
Does he agree that one of our responsibilities as legislators is to ensure that the fishing industry has a viable future, and that all safety aspects are regarded as critical?

Mr. Jack: I endorse what the hon. Lady has said. None of us could forget the tragedy to which she referred. I am grateful for that intervention, because the hon. Lady was right to refer to safety. She will be aware that, some months


ago in Committee, I announced the resumption of grants for safety measures. I also indicated our willingness to consider the implications of work being undertaken by the Department of Transport for vessels below 12 m.
I started by referring to the fishermen themselves, precisely because they and the communities in which they live and work lie at the heart of all our considerations. Since I took over responsibility for this area of policy, I have been greatly assisted by the many messages that I have received from hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies. I am sure that some of them will make their own contributions this evening, but fear that my hon. Friend the Member Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) will be unable to do so. In her own way, she has singularly communicated the particular needs of her fishermen. She has also done singular service in ensuring that I am kept abreast of the feelings of many right hon. and hon. Members on this subject.
This debate is an annual one. It is important, because it provides an opportunity to prepare for the December meeting of the Fisheries Council, which will begin on Sunday in Brussels. It is at that meeting that the decisions on next year's total allowable catches and quotas will be made.
The debate also gives me the opportunity to outline the Government's position on fishing policy, in the light of the outcome of the recent court case brought by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. In addition to deciding on the total allowable catches and quotas, the Council will also consider the important Commission proposal concerning the Spanish and Portuguese accession arrangements. The debate also affords the House the opportunity to discuss the valuable report on fishing policy from the Select Committee on Agriculture.
As always, some of the Commission's proposals have only just become available, because they must be based on the most up-to-date scientific advice. I know that that means that, unfortunately, there has been little time for the Scrutiny Committee or hon. Members to study them. I believe that hon. Members understand such matters sufficiently well, however, to make an appraisal on the information available to them.
During the summer, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and I visited our major fishing centres. We covered the United Kingdom in a genuine attempt to understand some of the issues that affect the fishing industry around our shores. I learned a great deal about that industry, and about the men and women who work in it. I also learned about the importance to those communities of a viable fishing industry.
Differences of opinion may be expressed in the debate about how we should achieve the viability objective, but there is no doubt about our common cause in trying to find a way forward for the long-term future of the industry. I approach the debate in a genuine spirit of co-operation. I want to listen carefully to the views of right hon. and hon. Members. I also want to listen to the representations by the industry, because it is important that we try to recognise the common problem caused by trying to conserve fish stocks for the good of the industry.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: In the interests of fishermen, may I make a plea for greater co-operation among Departments? Following

the tragic loss of the Antares, fine co-operation exists off the west coast of Scotland among fishermen and those mariners who sail the nuclear submarines. More needs to be done.
At this moment, a gas pipe is being installed between the south of Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the interests of the fishermen have been disregarded. Is it the case that part of that pipeline will be laid on top of the seabed and not in a trench? That decision is of considerable importance to the fishermen who work those waters. Similarly, with the abandonment of pipeline networks, as a result of the workings of the Petroleum Act 1987, much more consultation with our fishermen needs to be undertaken.

Mr. Jack: I thank the hon. Gentleman for displaying his customary courtesy in putting his views to me. We have debated matters connected with the Antares in Committee, and I know that he was satisfied with the response that I gave at that time. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland replies to the debate, I shall ask him to deal specifically with pipelines. Suffice it to say that there is considerable dialogue between those in the offshore gas industry and the fishing industry.

Mr. Alex Salmond: When the Minister undertook his trip around the coastline to the various fishing ports, he must have become aware that, although there was huge opposition to the legislation governing days at sea, there was general support for the decommissioning package: the fishermen's only criticism was that it did not go far enough. When the Minister announced his response to the court reversal, why on earth did he say that the Government would suspend decommissioning after this year in addition to suspending the requirements governing days at sea? Is that really an example of the Government listening to the fishing industry?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated certain passages in my speech. I will say something about that decision later, when I will be happy to take a further intervention from him.

Mrs. Ewing: During business questions on Thursday, my party specifically asked for a clear statement to be made on the days-at-sea arrangements. We then read in the national press on Friday morning that the Government intended to drop those arrangements. They made no mention of considering the decommissioning programme against the decision on the days-at-sea arrangements. What carrot and stick are the Government using?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Lady should wait until we have made a little progress, when we can deal with that matter. I am not aware of any statement that I made to the national press. She may have read certain local reports in Scottish newspapers. I have seen a copy of the answer to a parliamentary question tabled today, and it offers a complete view of our policy. Any other reports on that policy were speculative.
I hope that hon. Members will not mind if I now make further progress by outlining our future policy.
In considering the fishing industry, we should be minded by a statement by the European Court of Auditors. I hope that the House will bear with me if I quote from it,


as it puts in context the real problems that the industry is facing. On decommissioning schemes, the following words were uttered:
It must be said that since the CFP was instituted, the technological changes in the fishing sector have been so big that catch and detection facilities have now reached such a level of perfection that the traditional balance between fishing and resources has been destroyed. Any resource can now be located and exploited with an efficiency that has never been known in all the time that man has been exploiting fish resources.
That gives some indication of the problem that we must all join in dealing with. The balance between man and his ability to catch fish is very much in the favour of man.

Mr. Neville Trotter: I thank my hon. Friend for visiting North Shields and listening to the concerns of local fishermen. With the desperate state of stocks in the North sea—the extract that he has just read highlights that situation—can he give us some assurance on the problems that are facing us if the Spanish and Portuguese are given access to the North sea? However difficult the situation is now, it will be disastrous if they are given free access.

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I congratulate him on the stalwart efforts that he has made in proposing, for example, a new fish quay at North Shields. He has done singular service to his fishermen.
I shall want to expand my remarks on Spain and Portugal. I understand the serious nature of the problems so far as fishermen are concerned, not just in the North sea but in the western approaches and Irish sea. Those are serious matters, and we will want to negotiate them during the coming Fisheries Council, commensurate with the policy of relative stability and no increase in fishing effort. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that I will take the tenor of his remarks with all seriousness when we carry out that debate.
When I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth I had given an indication of the European Court of Auditors' views on the relationship between man's ability to catch fish and the impact that that has on the fishing stocks. That reflects the fact that this time is difficult for the industry. The key problem is the perennial one of how to provide the maximum fishing opportunities for our fisherman while conserving the stocks sufficiently to ensure that there will be fish to catch in the future.
It is not an easy balance to strike, but we should not overlook the fact that the situation is not completely negative. In cash terms, the value of fish landed up to September this year has risen by 4·7 per cent. to a total of £315 million. That increase in the value of the landed catch reflects rises in each of the demersal, pelagic and shellfish sectors.
In deciding how the fishing stocks are to be managed, a key element must be the advice of the scientists, whose long-term analysis of the fish stocks guide their recommendations on the amount of fish that can be caught, area by area and species by species. As I shall outline, some of their recommendations will be difficult for our fishermen, as they reflect a real fear that some stocks will not be able to sustain current levels of fishing effort.
The negotiations taking place at the Fisheries Council in Brussels will also deal with the arrangements to apply in future to the Spanish and Portuguese fishing fleet, and will be very much focused on the means of ensuring that there is no increase in fishing effort by those fleets, so that vulnerable stocks are not further weakened.
As I have reported to the House, we are looking at all those issues against a background of securing the reductions in effort that are necessary to bring fishing opportunities, capacity and effort into a more sustainable balance, and to meet our part of the multi-annual guidance programme responsibility, which falls on all member states.
Those matters, then, constitute the agenda for the debate, and I want to expand on them. The sharing of our resources while protecting them and ensuring that we respond to changing requirements in ways that do not damage the delicate balance is one of the main challenges that we all must face. In achieving that, we must ensure that the United Kingdom's industry's needs and interests are fully reflected, in terms of fair treatment now and in developing measures for the future.
Last Thursday, in the House, I said that I would shortly clarify how the Government saw the way forward on days at sea. The House will be aware of the Government's plans to bring fishing effort more into a sustainable balance with the stocks and for meeting our MAGP targets. Hon. Members will also be aware of the recent High Court judgment in the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisation's judicial review proceedings.
The court, while noting that there is total agreement on the need to prevent overfishing of certain stocks, concluded that there are various points of Community law, which it felt unable to resolve. The case has therefore been referred to the European Court of Justice.
That means that the industry has been left in a state of uncertainty, and there is a question mark over our conservation policies. In that situation, my right hon. Friends and I have concluded that the most straightforward course is to suspend the implementation of days-at-sea restrictions pending the judgment of the European Court of Justice, which we shall seek to have expedited.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: In what the Minister has just said, the implication must be read that, were the decision of the European court to be favourable to the Government, they would be prepared to reimpose the days-at-sea restriction. Is that a reasonable or realistic position for the Government to have? Would it not be much more straightforward for the Government to say now that the days-at-sea restriction is to be abandoned completely, and to open negotiations and discussions with the industry immediately?

Mr. Jack: I shall answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's point now, and I hope that he will not mind if, in later remarks, I repeat some further amplification of it. I can understand the point that he makes, but none of us, in trying to deal with the question of the over-capacity of our industry and the need to constrain effort, can uncouple those different parts of the package. When we introduced days at sea, we were mindful of the failures of previous decommissioning schemes.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Not that hoary old chestnut again.

Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman wants to run away from the hoary old chestnut, he is running way from the central issue in our efforts to deal with the problem.
The central problem of decommissioning is that, if, by virtue of that policy, one takes out fishing effort, any of the


gains from so doing will be lost if one does not in some way constrain the fishing effort of the remainder of the fleet.
As I shall come on to outline, at this time further discussions have to be held in the light of the uncertainties that the court case has thrown up.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jack: If I may just make a little more progress to the end of this passage, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Taylor: It is just on the European Court.

Mr. Jack: The right hon. Gentleman can have his say on the European Court when I have had mine on these remarks. In fairness, I want to finish my response to the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell).
Hon. Members will recall that days-at-sea controls are one element of a package of measures designed to conserve the stocks and meet our Community targets, while securing value for money. Other elements are various new licensing rules, and a £25 million decommissioning scheme.
I am pleased to be able to confirm that fishermen whose bids have already been accepted under the decommissioning scheme will receive their grants, provided that, in accordance with the scheme, they scrap their vessels and submit the necessary documentation to the Ministry before 1 March 1994. Beyond that, we need to review the way forward; as a first step, we shall be speaking to the European Commissioner about what further needs to be done. I shall also speak to the industry. I shall present further proposals to the House in due course.
It is, however, already clear that it will not be easy to achieve our targets and conservation objectives without the effort reduction that was represented by days at sea.

Mr. Taylor: A case dealing with days at sea has been referred to the European Court in Luxembourg, and by tradition that Court has taken a long time to consider issues. Based on experience, what period does the Minister expect to elapse before the court reaches a decision?

Mr. Jack: I expect that the court would take between 18 months and two years to come to its decision, and there may then be subsequent legal proceedings within the United Kingdom's courts. The challenge before us is that we still have to meet our European reduction targets.

Mr. James Wallace: The Minister has repeated the terms of the written answer given this afternoon, which, while confirming the position on decommissioning for the first year, is silent about decommissioning for the second and third years. If he wants to talk to the industry and, one hopes, also listen to it in the constructive way that he set out earlier, does he agree that he will do his case, and the talks, no good if there is a veiled threat about withdrawing decommissioning? Will he confirm that the decommissioning schemes will go ahead for years two and three?

Mr. Jack: I am not in the business of making threats. I acknowledge that the situation is sensitive, but, under the changed circumstances, I want time to think through

carefully the range of policy options that are open to us, so that we may meet our Community targets. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, at this juncture, I do not reel off a potential list. Some schemes may be practical, others may not. I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I will take the most careful note of it in considering those options.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Jack: I must answer this important point, and I want my answer to satisfy the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).
I want to give proper reflection to the available range of options to meet those targets—we shall come to other matters in the debate—and I may want to discuss all those issues with the Commissioner in the light of meeting our targets.

Mr. Keith Mans: My hon. Friend will know that people in my port of Fleetwood will welcome his comments about days at sea, because he knows that we in Fleetwood have had serious doubts about the effectiveness of the days-at-sea provision on effort control. Does he know when he will be able to give the House an idea of the other measures that he proposes to take, and whether he will be taking forward discussions with the industry along the lines of its recent proposals for an alternative to the days-at-sea provision?

Mr. Jack: I met representatives of the industry for discussions only this afternoon. The meeting had originally been called to hear their comments on the total allowable catches and quotas proposals from the Community, but we had an initial exchange on the implications of our announcement, and I gave them an undertaking that we would have—as I would want us to have—discussions with them on those matters. If our attempts to expediate matters in the European Court come to fruition, we might see an earlier resolution to some of the problems.
As to the other measures, once I have had an opportunity to meet the European Commissioner and discuss the situation with him, I hope that, not too long after that, we can come forward with some proposals.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I understand that the Minister is trying to be helpful, and I appreciate that, but can he be a bit more specific? Is there any chance of getting an announcement in the hands of the fishing industry by early next year?

Mr. Jack: I can agree with the "next year" bit, but "early" is one of those words about which one has to think carefully. I am conscious that we have to meet our Community objectives. I want to be quite certain that the policy implications arising from the court judgment can be considered carefully, in consultation with the industry, and after listening to the views of right hon. and hon. Members. I do not want to jump to an early conclusion when there is a problem.
For example, nobody can run away, in the argument on decommissioning, from the central issue that we have to find some way to control the effort of the remainder of the fleet. If we do not,. we might potentially negate all the gains. I want to reflect on that.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jack: I will continue to give way to hon. Members, so long as I do not suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. That is what happened last time, when I gave way many times but was then accused of taking too long.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Scottish fishing industry did not choose to have recourse to the courts? Will he undertake to continue negotiations with the Scottish fishing industry, particularly on the decommissioning programme?

Mr. Jack: I hope that my hon. Friend will continue the dialogue. I have enjoyed my conversations with the Scottish fishermnen's representatives. They are robust, and I am sure that they will form a future part of our consultations.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Every hon. Member understands that the Minister is in a difficult position, and we do not expect him to tell us precisely what he will do in the interregnum while waiting either for the judgment from Europe or until the final decision has been taken. Surely he must say clearly that, among the options that have to be considered, he will not abandon decommissioning. That is all we are saying. Will he accept that decommissioning will have a vital part to play in the future? There is no difficulty in answering that question—a simple yes or no will do.

Mr. Jack: I have not uttered, nor does the rest of my brief contain, any words to the effect that I am abandoning any policy. As I have said, I understand the importance of decommissioning, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's understanding of my position, but I cannot give a definitive, detailed, worked-out, alternative approach.
I cannot escape the fact that the maximum effectiveness of decommissioning is derived when the central issue of effort control for the remainder of the fleet is addressed. In all honesty, nobody can run away from that point.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Dorset fishermen have been impressed by my hon. Friend's approach to fishing problems. He should take credit for what he did for the inshore fishermen and the shell fishermen. We have a great deal of faith in what he can do. I hope that, supported by the positive approach of my fishermen to all the problems, he will be able to come up with a solution that can be to the benefit of all parts of the industry. After all, the industry will get the benefits of good conservation measures.

Mr. Jack: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind remarks. I met some of the fishermen from his area when we were discussing the previous policy, and I found what they had to say was useful.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Jack: I should like to make a little progress, because I want to deal with certain matters connected with decommissioning. I have been extraordinarily generous in giving way to hon. Members representing the Scottish National party. Others may wish to intervene. I am not against being interrupted, but I want to make a little bit of progress so that the House has something else to chew over.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not quite able to hear the Minister, but he

may in the extremity of the moment have forgotten that, earlier in his speech, he had committed himself to giving way to me. I know that he is a man of his word, and I am sure that he will want to keep it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Jack: I want to make a little progress. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) may catch my eye a little later.
Decommissioning has a role to play, but I note that even the Select Committee, which advocated a more generous scheme, appeared to share the Government's scepticism, in paragraph 140, and called for "value for money safeguards". Similarly, in last year's debate, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) admitted:
A decommissioning scheme is not a panacea or a policy that can work on its own".—[Official Report, 9 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 865.]
Controlling fishing effort is not something we can dodge. No doubt Opposition Members will attack the Government—for example, on the size of our scheme. I hope that all those who choose that line of argument will be kind enough, on behalf of their respective parties, to tell us how much they would have spent, whether a firm pledge has been given or whether they have simply uttered words for the consumption of the industry—knowing, as Conservative Members know, that they will never have the chance to implement those hollow gestures.

Mr. Salmond: As the Minister knows, the plans of the Scottish National party for decommissioning were in our pre-Budget statement.
Will the Minister consider what he is doing with this policy? He has told us that the issue of days at sea will remain in the European Court and continue to poison the atmosphere. He is withdrawing decommissioning after the first year, even in Scotland where the industry was not a party to the court case that he is reacting to, as Conservative Members have pointed out. He has shown no signs of responding to the fishermen's submissions, which he asked to be submitted on 30 September.
Can we take from the Minister's utterances any indication of good faith towards the industry? He is in danger of once again poisoning the atmosphere by withdrawing decommissioning without rationale.

Mr. Jack: That almost sounded like a quote from the press release that was written before the debate started.
I have not yet said that decommissioning will be withdrawn. I said that I understood the importance attached to it, and that I would consider the views expressed by hon. Members during the debate. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that he understood my position and that I was not able to give definitive, detailed, point-by-point statements of the policies that we will have to follow, bearing in mind that we still have our Community effort-reduction targets to meet. I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will understand that and not misrepresent the situation.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jack: No; I want to make some progress.
I do not want to pollute the good relations that I hope we have begun to build up with the industry, and I will later refer to the study that the fishermen's organisations have put before us.

Mr. A. J. Beith: In the intervention by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), and in some of the Minister's earlier comments, there seemed to be a suggestion that the Government thought it improper that the National Association of Fishermen's Organisations and my constituents should take the matter to the court to obtain a ruling. That is a different attitude from the one taken on Sunday trading. I never heard Ministers say that it was wrong for B and Q to take that matter to the European Court.
In seeking good constructive relations with the industry, I hope that the Minister is not implying that its application for a legal ruling deserves some form of punitive reaction in relation to decommissioning, and that his action is a temporary prelude to reintroducing it as part of a new package.

Mr. Jack: I am not vindictive by nature. If the NFFO felt that that was the best course of action to serve its members' interests, it had every right to proceed. My disappointment was because, having listened to what people said during the summer, I would have liked to respond. But the court case got in the way, and we now have to tackle the programme in a different way.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan thinks through his policies carefully, and I hope that he will understand the difficulty I currently face. I still have before me the Community effort-reduction obligation in MAGP, and I need to discuss its implications for the United Kingdom. I am aware of a number of ways of achieving effort reduction, but I want to weigh those discussions very carefully—as I will those that I will have with the industry—before coming to a firm conclusion, about which I and my right hon. Friend would feel comfortable when putting it before the fishing industry.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for effort reduction. In Hastings and Rye during the summer, we did not reach our sole quota. There is great worry about the future existence of sole as a species in that area. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for arranging a survey of the shingle bank, in order to find out the cause of the problem. His announcement today will be welcomed by the fishermen. At least they have some respite from their worst fears.

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. She has done a good job in representing the interests of her fishing community, and she brought a delegation of fishermen to see me. I am grateful for her comments about the aggregate dredging of the shingle bank in her constituency.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jack: Since the hon. Lady asks so nicely, I will.

Mrs. Ewing: I appreciate the exigencies under which the Minister is operating. He has spoken quite clearly about the carrot and stick of the days at sea and decommissioning. Under what circumstances would the Government argue for the continuation of a decommissioning scheme after 1 March 1994?

Mr. Jack: I have tried very hard to paint the picture. I have explained the current issues in regard to meeting the Community effort-reduction targets. As I have explained to the hon. Lady, and reflected in terms what the Select Committee have said, it must be recognised that, if we are

to have a decommissioning scheme that delivers, we cannot escape considering the effort that remains fishing. No one can run away from that.
I do not dismiss any proposition about ways of achieving the Community target, but I need time to consider such propositions in the context of the discussions with the Commission and the industry.
Hon. Members have mentioned the work that the industry has done. Technical conservation has a role to play, as the Select Committee noted. The industry has done useful work during the summer and "I want to pursue that subject in discussions with it. We must recognise that the scientific advice is that the industry's suggestions will make only a small contribution to reducing fishing effort. The multi-annual guidance programme targets as currently constituted by the Commission do not allow technical conservation to count. I am sure that Opposition Members will tell me that technical conservation is the answer to some of the problems.
What set of proposals are the Opposition in favour of? We have had two sets of proposals put before us: one from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, which codifies existing good conservation practice but contains nothing which would genuinely relieve the serious pressure on north sea cod, except for the idea of a separator trawl. That would require more research, and raises a question of enforceability.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) remarked about the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's proposals, they seem to contemplate a days-at-sea scheme with no total allowable catches. Their main proposal for the North sea was for a reduced mesh size in square mesh panels.
Unlike the Opposition, the industry has at least put down its ideas in detail. There are limitations to the proposals, but much valuable work has been done. I can assure the House that we will resume discussions with the industry on its ideas, to see what part it can play in our further attempts to reduce fishing effort and meet our Community obligations.
I cannot leave out the views of the Liberal Democrat party about this matter. I am at a loss in trying to comment on its fishing policy, because, since I have been responsible for fishery matters, its only policy seems to have been waving in front of me a document which was acquired from one of our fishery offices. If it cannot do any better, it is the Liberal Democrat party that should be decommissioned forthwith.
I have already referred to a number of points about effort control in the Select Committee's report. I was pleased to note that the Committee also endorsed a number of key elements in the Government's approach to the common fisheries policy—particularly the central importance of relative stability, the use of total allowable catches and quotas as policy instruments and the need to base policy decisions closely on the advice of scientific experts. All those concerns will underline our negotiating approach to TACs and quotas in the Council next week.
I know that the Committee considered our proposals on days-at-sea controls too draconian. I hope that its members have been able to see the action that we have taken in the light of the court case; we had hoped to announce an easing of policy, but the case prevented that.
The Commission's proposals for TACs and quotas, which the Council will consider next week, must be seen


against a background of continued pressure on the principal stocks, and the need to find a satisfactory solution to the problem of reducing effort.
The picture around our shores is generally worrying. West coast demersals continue to be a poor state: They suffer from the same problems as those in the North sea—high mortality and low spawning stock biomass. In the Irish sea, the cod situation remains extremely serious, and the Advisory Committee on Fish Management has recommended drastic action.
Reductions are proposed for important stocks in area seven—cod, anglers and megrim. It is also proposed that the TACs for northern hake should be significantly reduced, on the basis of the first analytical assessment of that stock. Flatfish stocks in particular—everywhere—have shown some recovery, thanks to good recruitment; but, in that and all other stocks, prudent management must be exercised.
The Commission's proposals on the TACs for North sea demersals, as well as North sea herring and western mackerel, must await the conclusions of the Community Norway consultations, which are currently taking place. I think that it is too early to judge the outcome of those discussions; however, I can tell the House that the stocks of all round fish except haddock are depleted. As for pelagic species, although western mackerel and herring stocks are in good shape, the stocks of North sea mackerel remain in a collapsed state.

Dr. Godman: In the light of the negotiations with Norway—and given that a number of vessels are ready to sail at the end of the month, so that they can start fishing in northern Norwegian waters early in the new year—can the Minister give us any idea when the negotiations between the European Union and Norway will be settled? Are they likely to be settled before 31 December?

Mr. Jack: They must be settled in time for the negotiations of the Council this weekend. At the end of that meeting, we must agree the TACs and quotas.
Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a recent piece of good news in relation to Community negotiations with the European economic area, which included discussion of the so-called cohesion cod. As a result of that discussion, in the north Norwegian waters our vessels will enjoy an increase of some 40 per cent. in the amount of cod they can catch. We hope that, in our discussions this weekend and next week, we shall reach a conclusion that meets the hon. Gentleman's timetable.
In negotiating, the Government will have in mind the needs and concerns of people in all regions of the United Kingdom. We shall also request Hague preference terms where appropriate, and seek to obtain western mackerel flexibility at least at the same levels as last year.
I know that hon. Members will understand that we are in the process of a complicated negotiation. As well as dealing with the TACs and quotas for stocks in our own waters, we must deal with those for stocks that we share with Norway. As one of 12 member states, we shall do the best we can to secure an outcome that gives the United Kingdom the best possible fishing opportunities for 1994, consistent with the requirement to conserve fish stocks and preserve the principle of relative stability.
I was anxious for the industry to be aware of those factors. This afternoon, I met some of its representatives to explain our position, and to listen to their concerns before the negotiations.
The motion refers to guide prices. I am pleased to say that the 1994 prices agreed—as is usual—in the November Council were generally satisfactory for the United Kingdom. In particular, we secured the continuance of the dual guide price for herring, which is designed to enable the United Kingdom industry to take best advantage of the Community support mechanisms.
Next week, the Council is likely to decide on the future of the fisheries accession arrangements for Spain and Portugal. As with the TACs and quotas, we shall insist that relative stability must be maintained; equally, there must be no increase in fishing effort. We must all accept that the option of doing nothing does not exist. The Act of accession for those two countries clearly lays down the obligation to examine the position, and for us to consider changes this year.

Mrs. Ewing: In which articles?

Mr. Jack: The articles dealing with this matter that I have seen so far were in the Commission's original proposals. They were not acceptable to us. We made it very clear at the outset that the Commission's wish to concede the principle of freedom of access for all Community vessels to Community waters before putting in place the detail of what was to replace the existing mechanisms was entirely unacceptable to the United Kingdom. When the matter was discussed again in the November Council, we were joined by other member states that felt the same.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jack: May I finish my answer to the important question asked by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)? I am glad that she asked it, from a sedentary position.
We have made our stance very clear. The Council will be presented with the outcome of discussions that have taken place among the various committees, including the Committee of Permanent Representatives. We shall have further proposals before us at the weekend, and I have outlined the basic principles on which we shall judge those matters.
Let me make it clear that I take the issues involving those with fishing interests in the North sea as seriously as I take issues affecting those who represent fishing interests in the western approaches in the Irish sea. This matter affects both areas, and it is extremely serious; but, as I have said, the option to do nothing is not available.

Mr. Tyler: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to be helpful, and to strengthen the Minister's arm in the negotiations. In relation to both the western approaches and the Irish box, these matters could pose as serious a threat to the industry as the days-at-sea provisions—more serious, perhaps, in regard to certain species. We all recognise the problems that the Minister faces.
Nevertheless, I think that we all feel—I am sure that this is the industry's view—that the circumstances in which the accession treaty was signed were different in material ways. The emphasis on the conservation of particular species has changed dramatically in the intervening period.


I hope that the Minister will be robust in the negotiations, and will not be happy to indulge in horse trading that will sell our fishermen down the river.

Mr. Jack: We took an extremely robust line when the matter was first discussed. We said that the Commission's proposed measures were unacceptable—and we took a similarly robust line last time. I like to think that the force of our arguments and our negotiating position attracted support from others.
I have made our basic principles extremely clear. Let me say in all sincerity, however, that, however robust I am, and however hard I fight for our fishermen's interests—which I will do—we are but one of 12. I cannot anticipate the final actions of other member states, which will themselves consider the matter in terms of their own national interests.
It is worth recording, in connection with the way in which the Community works, that Greece and Italy have little direct interest in the matter. Obviously, Spain and Portugal are entirely in favour of the proposition. The United Kingdom and Ireland have made a clear statement of opposition to the proposals that have been put forward so far. Other countries have voiced reservations in their own interests as they see fit. We shall continue to try to ensure that there is robust support, and to question inadequate proposals. We do not have the option on this occasion to do nothing.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: The issue to which the Minister refers has serious implications for the Irish box and the Irish sea, where France, Spain and Portugal take 88 per cent. of the catch. The odds in that playing field, if one may use that analogy, are loaded agains the Northern Irish fishermen, and I am worried that the Minister's comments indicate a willingness to let himself be persuaded, or perhaps bullied, by other European nations.
That is not acceptable to the fishing industry. We need the same rules and regulations and for them to be enforced against other countries that are taking the major part of the fishing industry away from those Irish areas.

Mr. Jack: I thank the hon. Member for his remarks. Let me not leave him in any doubt that the United Kingdom has been resolute in its objections so far to the proposals that have come forward. Our negotiators went for further discussions with a clear remit that, unless the basic principles that I have outlined—relative stability and no increase in fishing effort—were met, the proposals were unacceptable.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I could sit in the Council meeting all next week, thump the table hard and continue to say no, but if 11 people decide to say yes, I am not in a position to veto that. My task must be to negotiate with as much skill and determination as possible to achieve the best possible deal for our fishermen, under circumstances in which to do nothing is not an option.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that there is an agreed Community position that the Irish box ceases to exist at the end of December 1995. That is not to say that there are not other options that ought to be considered that relate to the removal of that box. We shall consider those proposals carefully. Some people have suggested

alternatives, such as a Shetland box, or closed areas. If any one of those were to be introduced, they would be put in place on a non-discriminatory basis and all Community countries would be bound by whatever restrictions were imposed.
In closing areas, one must remember the displacement effect—where people go to fish when they are not allowed to do so in certain areas. When I visited the three Northern Ireland fishing ports in the summer, I was left in no doubt of the state of the fishing industry there and the difficulties faced by those who fish there. Those difficulties shall be in my mind as we negotiate.
I hope that hon. Members understand the reasons for the policy announcement. I am not abandoning policies, as has been suggested, but merely regrouping to consider where we go from here. I cannot escape the Community obligations under our multi-annual guidance programme. I shall fight hard in the negotiations in Brussels in the coming days for our fishermen, and over the issues of TACs, quotas and the concerns with Spain and Portugal.
Conservative Members do not shirk difficult decisions over the fishing industry. It is easy, in the interests of gesture politics, to talk fine words, but our common task must be the conservation of our fishing stocks for the long-term future of the industry.

Dr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move, to leave out from 'and supports' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'agrees with the House of Commons Select Committee on Agriculture that days at sea restrictions are "unnecessarily draconian" and "carry the risk that the United Kingdom fleet will suffer a catastrophic financial implosion"; notes the recent High Court judgment on the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1992; urges the Government to abandon the days at sea restrictions and to respond positively to the conservation proposals put forward by the fishing industry; calls upon the Government to maintain the role of the Royal Navy in fisheries protection work and to do all in its power to ensure that the Common Fisheries Policy enforcement mechanisms coming into operation on 1st January 1994 are effective; urges the Government to ensure that the minimum possible disadvantage is imposed upon the United Kingdom fishing industry by any agreement on the Spanish and Portuguese Act of Accession; and calls upon the Government to use the forthcoming European Union Fisheries Council meeting to secure a better deal for United Kingdom fishermen.'.
This has almost become the annual debate on the fishing industry. It is certainly the main debate of the year as it traditionally precedes the December Council when important decisions are taken in relation to the industry. Tonight's debate is not only about that Council. We have the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture and the Government's response before us and this debate is an unsatisfactory way in which to deal with that. There is a great deal of valuable information in the report. The Select Committee has made a great effort and it is unfair and unacceptable that it should be slotted into the debate when hon. Members wish to raise a whole range of issues. If there is any doubt that it is unfair and unacceptable, I suggest that hon. Members re-read the Minister's speech to see how little reference he made to some of the report's important recommendations. Indeed, he hardly mentioned it because he is inevitably preoccupied with the decisions to be taken at the Council later this month.
I am afraid that the industry is still in a relatively depressed state when compared to its state in the past year. There has been some improvement in prices, but not in all areas. However, the Scottish salmon industry—not the


traditional sea fishing industry—is especially depressed. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will make some reference to it in his reply. The salmon industry is facing a crisis. It is being subjected to an utterly unacceptable level of dumping of salmon from Norway.
The minimum import price that has been set is derisory and the original proposal to license imports would have been more effective, but Norway refused to accept. In the Minister's negotiations with Norway and in talks at the Council, he must come up with more effective action to save that industry because thousands of jobs are at stake. The House as a whole does not seem to appreciate the growing importance of fish farming and how crucial the jobs are, not only to the Scottish economy, but to the United Kingdom as a whole.
The fishing industry depends on government. I use the word "government" in its widest sense to apply to the authorities of the European Community and the Government who are answerable to the House of Commons. I know that the present Government and their predecessors have made great play of their wish to disengage from industry and apply a laissez-faire approach. That cannot apply to fishing and at least on that point there is common ground.
The House accepts that the fishing industry cannot conserve its own stocks. Clearly, it needs Government intervention to protect its future and it needs support in other respects. Opposition Members would argue that the Government have a special responsibility to ensure that we can conserve our stocks and maintain a viable industry for the long-term future. One only has to look at the history of the North sea herring to recognise what can happen to stocks, or at the Mediterranean, where, as a result of over-fishing by some of the other EU member countries, there are too many fishermen chasing too few fish. As the Minister said in his opening remarks, we need to achieve a better balance.
The record of the Government—not just the record since the Minister of State took over, because we are entitled to take a longer view than that—is essentially one of failure, and nothing that we have heard today encourages us to believe that that period of failure is about to come to an end. One example of that is decommissioning, which has been central to much of the argument in the House.
When the Minister took over the brief, I dare say that, like me, he read some of the debates, particularly the main debate of the year, over the past five years or so. He will have seen the arguments about the need for a decommissioning scheme. Between 1987 and 1992, £256 million was made available for decommissioning schemes throughout the Community. Ireland did not take advantage of that because it has always been Ireland's policy—there is an implicit, if not explicit, acceptance of it—that its industry was entitled to grow. Ireland's position was unique in that respect. The only other country that did not take a penny of the money that had been allocated by the EC for decommissioning was Britain.
We are talking about substantial sums. Let me remind the House that Spain, which has a large fishing fleet, took £61 million out of the arrangement and Germany—that big fishing fleet—took £26 million.

Mr. Gary Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is talking about decommissioning. Will he tell

the House how much his party would put into a decommissioning scheme in this country? How much would it cost and where would the money come from?

Dr. Strang: I shall come to that. If I do not answer that question, I hope that the hon. Member will intervene again.
I want to spend a little time on the history, which is important, not least because of the announcement today. The previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), made it clear consistently in debates that the Government were resolutely opposed to decommissioning. In December 1990 he said:
I emphasise that decommissioning is not the way to reduce the pressure on fish stocks".—[Official Report, 13 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 1171.]
Hon. Members who have been more regular attenders of these debates than I have been over the past five years will know that that was at a time when virtually every hon. Member with a fishing constituency was advocating the need for a decommissioning scheme.
We have a decommissioning scheme now, but it is inadequate. The Minister was quoting selectively when he referred to the Select Committee report. In fact, I believe that it was the only reference to the report in his speech. I shall give the whole quotation. The report states:
We understand the Government's scepticism about decommissioning, although it has made things much harder for itself by its failure to control the size of the fleet since the end of the last scheme in 1986.
The definitive point—I am glad that the chairman of the Select Committee is present—is this:
We do not however consider that the Government's half-hearted scheme is the right response to the problems associated with decommissioning. More money should be committed to make a serious effort to reduce over capacity along with the necessary value for money safeguards.
In the other place, the European Communities Select Committee published an equally good report. It said:
The decommissioning scheme announced by the Government in February 1992 is welcome as a sign that the Government have accepted the principle of decommissioning. However, the measures which were announced are not sufficient to reduce the capacity of the fleet in the long term. The Committee accepts that £25 million is not even enough to prevent the fleet capacity from expanding. Four or five times that amount is now needed to make up for the lack of a decommissioning scheme in the United Kingdom during the last decade. The scheme which was announced must, regretfully, be described as too little, too late.
We have said, and I repeat it, that £25 million a year should be the opening position for a decommissioning scheme.
Obviously we cannot predict what the circumstances will be in three year or four years. However, I submit that in the present climate an absolute minimum should be £25 million a year for three years, not £25 million over three years. The one thing about which we should be clear is that we must have a decommissioning scheme that will have a real impact on the fishing capacity, or we might as well not have one at all. All that we have from the Government is a belated, half-hearted approach. It has come many years after the other countries have implemented decommissioning schemes. Now, we are not sure what the Government are suggesting, but it seems that there may be a threat to suspend the scheme from the end of the financial year.

Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming his party's firm pledge about the amount that it would wish to spend initially. I note that it was for three years and possibly beyond. The hon. Gentleman talked about the effectiveness of decommissioning. Does he accept that constraining the effort of the remainder of the


fishing fleet after the effects of a decommissioning scheme have been felt is crucial to the effectiveness of decommissioning as an approach to restraining fishing effort?

Dr. Strang: To pharaphrase the Minister, what he is saying is not dissimilar to what he quoted my hon. Friend the Member for Glandford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) as saying, which is that decommissioning is not a panacea. It is not a solution to the long-term problem. We must take into account the increased efficiency to which the Minister referred to in his opening remarks. We accept that. However, we believe that a proper and effective decommissioning scheme has a part to play.
The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the enforcement of the Government's measures, including the proposed days-at-sea restrictions, would cost about £9 million. That is very costly. High costs are involved in some of the things that the Government are threatening to do. However, I take the Minister's point. In itself, decomissioning is not sufficient, but we are saying that it should be a major element of our approach.
The Government's approach is also inadequate—I would describe it as a debacle—on the proposed days-at-sea restrictions. There was virtual unity against that proposal among representatives in the House from fishing communities. The Opposition parties, led by the Labour party, consistently voted against the days-at-sea proposals at every opportunity. There was no support from the industry and no support from the House other than the whipped votes that the Minister secured. It could have been a close-run thing following the passage of the enabling Act, but not enough Government Members voted with the Opposition.
When the new Minister of State and the new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food took over, they announced that the Government would not go ahead with the implementation of the days-at-sea restrictions on 1 October, but would defer them until 1 January. I am grateful to the Minister and his right hon. Friend for meeting us twice to discuss those issues. that deferral was a window of opportunity for the Government to come up with an alternative policy that did not involve days-at-sea restrictions, which were clearly unacceptable to the industry.
During the course of all that, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations decided to go to court. The Minister was making it clear throughout that the Government were not minded to get rid of the days-at-sea restrictions. They may have reached that conclusion, but nothing that I heard him say at our meetings enabled me to walk out of the Ministry and say to the media, "Yes, I think that the Government will abandon the days-at-sea restrictions on the basis of the proposals put forward by the industry, which have all been submitted by the end of September."
The NFFO wrote to the Government to put it on record that it did not want the fact that it was going to court to prejudice the discussions on the conservation proposals put forward by the industry. The reply, dated 11 August, signed by Ms Rimmington, the Minister's Private Secretary, said that the Secretary of State was
aware that leave was granted on 22 July, and that the substantive hearing"—

the court hearing—
will take place in the first week of November. However, she has asked me to emphasise that this should not affect the dialogue with the industry which the Minister of State announced on 7 July.
Notwithstanding that, the Minister gave the clear impression, which has been confirmed by interventions in the Chamber this evening, that the Government deeply resented the NFFO going to court. Indeed, in the course of the dialogue they threatened that, in return for going to court, the NFFO might find that the Government would abandon the decommissioning scheme. The industry was given the impression that that was an option. I was aghast when the Minister said as much at my second meeting with her on 11 November.
Why did the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who is not in his place, and the leader of the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), focus attention on the fact that the Scottish industry was not party to the court case? As the Minister knows, they made that point because the Government clearly implied that they were minded to punish the industry for going to court. What other interpretation can we put on their statements during that dialogue? If I had the press release, I could quote from it.
The Minister implied that the court process distracted from the real issue of considering the industry's proposals. But the deadline for those proposals was 30 September and the case did not come up in court until November. The Government had the whole month of October to reach decisions on the alternative proposals and announce that compulsory tie-up would not figure as an element of their package of measures for conserving our stocks. That is what should have happened, but the Government did not do that.
We now have the court's decision. Had it not been for the Government's announcement this afternoon, the NFFO would have applied for interim relief in the court on 11 January. Had that been granted, the court would have prevented the Government from going ahead with the days-at-sea restrictions. I do not know what legal advice the Government took, but it is important to make that point clear. The Government have simply said that they have suspended the days-at-sea restrictions until a decision by the European Court of Justice. That is a bad decision by the Government and I hope that, when they have had time to consider it further, they will recognise that they must remove the proposal completely. It will work only if the industry co-operates and the industry will never co-operate on that matter.

Dr. Robert Spink: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the court judgment referred the matter up to the European Court of Justice? To summarise both cases, it was a neutral judgment. However, the court observed that it was necessary to conserve precious stocks.

Dr. Strang: I do not dispute that. I have quoted the Select Committee in our amendment. On compulsory tie-up, the Select Committee said that days-at-sea restrictions were "unnecessarily draconian" and
carry the risk that the United Kingdom fleet will suffer a catastrophic financial implosion".
We believe that days-at-sea restrictions are wrong because they will discriminate against people who have borrowed large sums of money and young skippers who


have bought a new vessel and are trying to earn an honest living. How can they pay off those debts and keep their business viable if those restrictions are imposed on them?
Like his predecessor last year, the Minister opened this debate by referring to the dangers associated with fishing. I make no apology for making this point and I make it as gently as I can. At present, if fishermen are a long way from home, fishing in difficult weather conditions, that constitute a danger to them, they will come home. With days-at-sea restrictions, there will be a pressure, however small, and an incentive to continue fishing in those dangerous conditions because that will be one of the limited days on which they can fish at sea.
One reason why the proposal would be unfair and unworkable is that, for various reasons—usually historically—Spanish, French and Irish vessels operate in the same areas as our fishermen, who could be tied up in port. The number of days which our fishermen could spend fishing those waters would be restricted, whereas no such restrictions would be imposed on those other member states because they are not implementing the days-at-sea restrictions, with which the Minister is still threatening the industry.
In the statement which the Government issued this afternoon in a written answer to the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), the Minister says that he will discuss the matter with the EC Commissioner. We understand that there is a common fisheries policy and that it is not unreasonable for the Minister to discuss the matter with the Commissioner and his colleagues in the Council of Fisheries, but I hope that the Government will not try to replace what is essentially domestic legislation—the regulations that have been enacted by the House of Commons on the basis of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992—with EC regulations that would apply days-at-sea restrictions across the board. Is that what the Minister has in mind?

Mr. Jack: Given that, as I said earlier, we still have to try to achieve our Community effort reduction target, under the multi-annual guidance programme, it is right that we should go to the Commission, explain in more detail what has occurred and analyse the implications of suspending the days-at-sea restrictions. They were an attempt to reduce fishing effort for the reasons that I gave earlier in terms of their relationship with decommissioning. We should then explore alternative measures with the Commissioner. I do not rule out the possibility of exploring with him some of the ideas with which the industry has come up. I gave a guarded reservation on the Commission's scepticism over gear regulations, but I did not rule out discussing that and other measures. What the Committee may choose to do is up to it.

Dr. Strang: We shall see what develops from the Minister's discussions with the Commission. I presume that they are to take place this month—

Mr. Jack: Early in the new year.

Dr. Strang: I am grateful for that information. I understand that Ministers will be preoccupied with all the material before the Council next week, so it will be January before the hon. Gentleman meets the Commissioner.
The Government's statement on decommissioning does not stand up. We listened carefully to what the Minister said about it, but there is no case for the suggestion that

decommissioning might not continue beyond the end of this financial year. The very opposite is true. If we are suspending the days-at-sea restriction proposals, we need additional measures to tackle the problem of too many fishermen and too few fish. If anything, the Government should announce this evening an enhanced decommissioning scheme.
The Minister failed to give any logical reason for suspending the decommissioning scheme from 31 March —which was certainly the implication of his remarks. We can read the statement in only one way: the money will be provided for this year, but the Government wish to consider whether they will provide the money for the next two years. Either that is just vindictive, or it is a threat that the Government will halt decommissioning at the end of this financial year. If the Minister reads his remarks today he will find that he totally failed to make the case for what he announced.
The Minister was right to draw attention to the conservation proposals that he has received from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and it is only right to pay tribute to the work that they have put into their proposals. Those proposals are not complementary; they are contradictory in many important respects. That is not to say that it is impossible to produce a package of additional technical conservation measures, allied with an enhanced decommissioning scheme, which would greatly improve the future of our fishery stocks.
I have already mentioned the inadequacy of the time allowed for debate on the Select Committee report and the Government's reply to it. I do not have time to do justice to that problem, but I should like to refer to one element in the report which is important—the proposal for individual transferable quotas. I wholly endorse the Government's response to the Select Committee on this. The Select Committee was wrong to make the proposal in the first place and the Government's reasons for rejecting it were valid.
My main worry about ITQs is that big business would move in and buy them up, with small fishing communities in the south-west of England or the north-west of Scotland selling them off. They might not even be able to buy them in the first place, because the Select Committee recommended auctioning the ITQs, so that people would have to pay for the right to fish. Another problem is that some of the ITQs could go to foreign-owned vessels.
I also agree with the Government's comments on enforcement and conservation. I do not believe that ITQs would produce a more effective conservation regime.
The Minister mentioned total allowable catches being proposed at the forthcoming Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will have something to say about TACs later, but I should like to point out two issues in this context. The Minister did not refer to the first of them, which was the idea of the Council regulation establishing a control system for the common fisheries policy. The Minister will, however, recognise that this is important. We know that some countries are flouting the regulations more than others are.
I make no apology for singling out Spain, which has a large fleet and which is guilty, as the Irish Government have documented. There was an excellent programme on television about it, carried on "The Cook Report". The Spanish fishing industry is certainly flouting the


regulations in a big way, so it is crucial that the new Council regulation be used in due course to sort out the problem.
The responsibility for policing the quotas will remain in the first instance with the fishery inspectors. We have a good force of them and the Minister paid tribute to them. The Spaniards have very few inspectors and other countries have inadequate systems of surveillance and inspection, so there is no effective enforcement of the quotas. That renders the whole approach to TACs nonsensical. I strongly urge the Minister to make a major issue of this next week.
My second point about the Council concerns the Spanish and Portuguese accession, to which we refer in our amendment. I appreciate the fact that the subject must be discussed at this meeting and that there is a commitment to come up with a firm solution. It will not be enough to stonewall in the belief that that will maintain the status quo until the year 2002.
The bottom line is that we must ensure that Spanish vessels in particular do not gain access to waters where they cannot fish now—the south-western approaches, the Irish sea and the Clyde fishery, not to mention the North sea. I emphasise the importance of the Irish box—an emphasis different from the Minister's. The real pressure from the Spanish will arise in the Irish box. We need a wide variety of ways of dealing with that; it calls for some ingenuity. If the will exists, it will certainly be possible to put in place successor arrangements which achieve precisely what the Irish box achieves: to prevent Spanish vessels from getting into these waters. As the Minister said, that must apply also to the North sea, where we want no additional Spanish effort.
This is the supreme challenge facing the Minister at the forthcoming Community meeting. Ultimately, although the TACs are important, they change from year to year, but this problem is one with which we shall have to live for years to come. As long as the proposal, presented by the Commission or by the Presidency, is within the terms of the treaty of accession, the decision will be by qualified majority voting: there will be no British veto.
Understandably, therefore, the Minister said that we cannot stop this on our own. But the best way to stop it would be to avoid a vote altogether and to succeed, in the horse-trading that goes on, in getting a deal meaning that we have enough support to stop any measure that would damage our interests being agreed to. I do not fault what the Minister has said, but the real test will be what he brings back. It is crucial that he does not let down the British industry and the House of Commons in the forthcoming negotiations—I am sure that we are united on that.
We regret the way in which the Government have handled the conservation issue. We believe that relations between the Government and the industry are at an all-time low, and are worried that that is reflected in an increase in the number of landings of black fish. The only way in which we can stop that is to re-establish a proper relationship between the industry and the Government. I appeal to the Government not just to suspend the days at sea restrictions but to abandon them. They should return to the House as the Minister pledged in his announcement today—I dare say that it will be February at the earliest.

The Government should announce a clear abandonment of the days at sea restrictions and a policy enabling the Government to work with, not against, the industry. We shall vote for that when we vote for our amendment tonight.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: My first pleasant task is to say how nice it is to see the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) back on the Labour Front Bench, and I am sorry that I have not had an opportunity to say so earlier. It is many years since we used to debate together across the Floor of the House on various agricultural matters. If my memory does not fail me, in those days I used to disagree with almost everything that he had to say. I was therefore delighted when I entirely agreed with his first three points.
The hon. Gentleman said that he believed that we should have had a considerably longer period in which to debate the Select Committee's report. Although I say so myself, it was an important report, and I was grateful for the support that I received from members of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman might have a word with his hon. Friends on the Liaison Committee which, despite an application for a half-day debate on the subject, decided that the matters that we debated yesterday should take priority. It is partly for that reason that the Government have been kind enough to refer to our report in the motion.
The hon. Gentleman also commented on the fish-farming industry, and I endorse what he said. Some two or three years ago, we did a study of that extremely important industry, whose economic importance may one day exceed that of the wild fishing industry. In parts of the highlands of Scotland it remains far and away the largest employer. The Norwegians have disgracefully overproduced. I hope that, on receiving a sensible application from the salmon farmers, Her Majesty's Government will use that as a card in the negotiations and put up a substantial quota against the farmed fish which are coming in in such profusion, and at well below the cost of production, from Norway.
The hon. Gentleman also made a statement reinforcing the Committee's conclusion—the absolute necessity for Government intervention if there is to be control over the fishing industries of Europe. The hard truth is that the physical operation of fishing has become much too efficient. The march of science cannot be halted—fish-finding equipment, trawlers, machinery and all that goes with the technology of fishing are all more efficient than stocks will allow. I cannot see any voluntary arrangement ever being successful in constraining Europe's fishermen from overfishing their main resource.
I have never spoken in a fisheries debate before, and I shall be brief as the two or three fishermen in my constituency hardly constitute a major interest. We had to learn about the industry almost from scratch and the subject was of interest to us all. When we stand back from the subject in a way that no other hon. Member present in today's debate can do—with the possible exception of the Whip—we see a relatively small industry.
I was pleased to learn that the industry's gross output has risen to £315 million, which must be a much higher figure than in recent years. To put the industry in context, it is less than half the size of the canned pet food industry and quite a lot smaller than the coffee industry. It has


representatives in the west country who are more vociferous and—dare I say it—sometimes less reasonable than their counterparts in Scotland.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): It is sinful to say that.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I do not wish to enter into a debate about that, but the calmness and rationality of some of the Scottish fishing interests were impressive.
I also acknowledge that there are small villages, harbours and ports where the fishing industry is so important to the social fabric and structure of the district as to have a disproportionate effect on the local economy. It is perhaps for that reason that my hon. Friends from the west country are present today—we always stick together.

Mr. Harris: Not at the moment.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I was making comparisons to encourage everyone to adopt a more rational approach. There has been a good deal of hot-headed talk in the debate, from which I can stand back, and I did not think it was unreasonable to make my earlier comment.
The Committee travelled all over the United Kingdom, and would have preferred to take longer doing so. We also visited fishing dependent areas in Norway, France and Spain. As we listened to fishermen and others, we felt considerable sympathy for all Governments in their attempts to establish a workable sea fisheries conservation policy.
The blame for the uncontestable fact that sea fish stocks are in a parlous state always lay with somebody else—the Eurocrats in Brussels, the Government in Whitehall, Spanish fishermen, French fishermen, Norwegian fishermen, other types of fishing vessels and methods, the chaps from the next-door harbour—certainly those from the next-door county. If we were in Cornwall, we were told that it was the fault of the Scots; if we were in Scotland, we were told that it was the fault of those in the west country. Such an approach did not allow anybody to produce a rational and sensible solution.
In private, not a single fisherman, whether Norwegian, Spanish, French or Scottish, denied that a problem existed. They all freely admitted that something had to be done and that there could be no future without a policy of some sort. But they could not suggest a firm arrangement that would not affect them, so any suggestions were unacceptable. I know that that seems harsh, but we must face reality.
The Committee felt that, in effect, the common fisheries policy had been developed from the agricultural sector of the Community. Although it appeared to be a good idea at the time, the failure to administer it in a universal and even-handed manner throughout the northern fishing countries has led to the mess in which we now find ourselves. The fact remains that, despite the figures given, our fishing stocks are still declining. Far from simply imposing the proposals, much more urgent and stricter measures will be needed if positive assistance is to be given to the re-establishment of certain stocks.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred to the history of the herring industry. The truth is that the herring fleet was happy to have a moratorium on herring fishing because there were no herring left. By not fishing for herring for 10 years, the stocks are now gradually being restored. The same principle should and must apply to many other species, but for the United Kingdom it is particularly important for cod and haddock.
I previously expressed sympathy for the Government, but I admit that the Committee had some rather harsh things to say about how the Government were proposing to achieve their capacity and effort-reduction targets under the Community's 1993 to 1996 multi-annual guidance programme. The three key elements of that policy are the decommissioning scheme, the cap on the number of days fishing vessels can spend at sea and the penalties on the aggregation or transfer of fishing licences.
We have heard a great deal about days at sea. Because of the court case, which has not been resolved but which has shot everybody's fox, there is to be a void next year. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister said that he has an open mind, but the fact remains that on 1 January everybody will fish like mad and, without constraint, will continue to do the damage that has been getting progressively worse over the years. I hope that my hon. Friend does not allow the political pressures on him to divert him from the essential need to reduce total fishing effort.
I am sure that hon. Members have read the Committee's report—certainly the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has done so. Of course, I hope that he will not always find our reports so useful for quotations to back his case. Nevertheless, there is all-party accord on the issue and the Committee had no difficulty reaching agreement.
The Committee asked a number of questions and we feel that the Government's response has been a holding one. Because of events and because my hon. Friend the Minister has gone around the fishing industry—I know that that has been widely welcomed—he may now feel able to answer some of those questions. The Committee commented on the absolute need to base future policy on research and on the question of how technical conservation measures and gear selectivity can be carried out.
We want to know how that is progressing. Some £18 million of taxpayers' money is being spent on research annually. We visited two laboratories and found that the Scottish one was in much closer in touch with its fishermen. The west country fishermen made the genuine complaint that they did not feel that the scientists from Lowestoft understood their problems.
The accession of Spain and Portugal will cause my hon. Friend the Minister considerable difficulty as both have made it clear that they expect a sympathetic hearing. When we visited La Coruña we saw the vast fishing industry which operates on that part of the Spanish coast. It is on a scale that we do not see in the United Kingdom. The Spanish have more than 19,000 fishing vessels. On my last visit to Portugal, I looked out of my hotel window in the middle of the night and counted 43 fishing vessels. I concede that they were small and probably single-handed operations, but what I saw reflected the number of people in those two countries who were involved in the industry.
The question of taking the matter onshore and examining the social aspects has not yet been mentioned today.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the Front-Bench spokesmen have taken up more than half the debate, may I, through you, appeal for short speeches in order to allow Back Benchers the maximum participation? Many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, so brevity would assist everyone, especially the fishing industry.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): On this occasion, the Chair cannot dictate the length of speeches, but the point is well taken.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I have never been accused of making long speeches, but my Committee spent nearly a year on the matter and produced a full and comprehensive report. I do not think that any Conservative members of the Committee will speak in the debate, so I hope that I will cover what I hope has been an important contribution to the general debate.
One of the functions of a Select Committee that is not always observed is its ability to collect the relevant evidence from the various interested organisations. I hope that hon. Members will have a good look at some of that evidence because much work was put into gathering it, not just by us but by the contributing organisations.
I asked my hon. Friend the Minister whether he would say a little about the Government's attitude to fishing dependent areas and what will happen to them as their industry declines, as it surely will, either because measures have to be taken or because the fish are simply no longer there. It is no good dodging the issue; one must face up to it.
Another question concerns the collection and presentation of economic data. We were surprised to find that, unlike in farming, where the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can give the economic returns on various farms in various parts of the country, evidence from the economic returns on fishing is poor—the cost of vessels and all that goes into preparing a proper economic background.
Finally, I come to the Committee's recommendations with which the Government did not agree. The decommissioning issue has had a full airing to which I shall not add my comments, except to say that I understand that, according to a press release from the Ministry, 142 vessels are likely to be decommissioned in the first year, reducing the capacity by a mere 2·5 per cent. That surely is the root cause of the problem of decommissioning—at the end of the day, it is only the worst, the least efficient and the oldest vessels that are taken out of use. The French, in the port of Lorient, gave us similar figures showing that a large number of vessels have been taken out of commission with practically no effect on the total numbers or quantity of fish caught.
It gives me little pleasure to see disarray creep into the Government's policy on days at sea, even though my Committee came down strongly against it. We have been quoted several times. We believe that it would be an inherently unfair policy, more particularly when no other country in the EC was subjected to a similar regime. Unsurprisingly, the French told us that there was no question of their being able to make such a policy work, even if it were to be imposed centrally.
We shall fall short of our MAGP target. That will not be for the first time, but if we have the fishermen's interests at heart the Government must take some steps to reduce fishing effort. I am sorry that I cannot persuade anyone that ITQs are a solution. The fishermen's organisations were against them, but I am not sure that they truly understood the great benefits of quotas. Quotas for milk and sheep have been widely welcomed—perhaps one should suggest abolishing them to see what the reaction would be.

Mrs. Ewing: I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say about ITQs because, obviously, he has not understood the significance of that aspect of policy for the fishermen whom my hon. Friends and I represent, many of whose boats are small family fishing businesses. ITQs would inevitably mean that those fishermen were bought out, thus destroying the fishing industry as we understand it and, as a result, destroying communities.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: The fact remains—the hon. Lady must grasp this point, as everyone in the fishing business must grasp it—that there must be a reduction in the number of vessels, or at least in the number of fish that are caught. If we decide in advance that there will be a fixed quantity of fish and give everyone an allocation, we shall, first, do a great deal to prevent waste and, secondly, and perhaps most important, give the fishermen an economic alternative to fishing. They will have the quota to sell. That is what happened in the milk industry. It is exactly what is happening in the sheep farming industry. It is a way of fixing production when otherwise there is absolutely no control.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister not to reject ITQs. With a little organisation and understanding, they may prove to be far and away the most simple way of handling this most obscure and difficult problem.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Each time we debate fisheries, the uncertainty becomes greater. Each year, the complexities become even worse. This year, the matter has been further obscured by the court case. Although I do not have many serious complaints about the length of the Front-Bench speeches—the Minister and the Opposition spokesman took many interventions and fisheries are not an easy matter to deal with—those speeches took one hour and 31 minutes out of a debate lasting two hours and 41 minutes.
The Leader of the House is here and he should take note that it is not good enough to squeeze issues into half a day's debate. We cannot discuss them properly. We have a debate in shorthand. We have to take a view and stick by it instead of discussing the issues rationally. Only by rational discussion shall we get ourselves out of the mess that we are in. I was not being over generous to the Minister when I said that I understood his problems in being definitive between now and the time of the final decision on the days-at-sea regulations, yet now that he has been dragged kicking and screaming into accepting that decommissioning is important, he cannot abandon that policy.
All that the Minister has to say when he replies to the debate is, "Yes, in future, decommissioning will have a part to play in the policy." It cannot be otherwise. I accept what he says. Decommissioning alone will not solve the problem. Yet restrictions on fishing effort alone will not solve the problem either—unless he is fixed on a policy of driving down the size of the fleet through bankruptcy, and all the problems that that brings with it. Decommissioning and restrictions must go hand in hand. The Minister must make it clear that decommissioning will be an even more important part of the policy.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) mentioned the small proportion of fishing effort that has been taken out as a result of the 142 acceptances of decommissioning. That demonstrates the problem.


There were 433 applications. Even at the present rate of growth, the three years would be taken up by the applications before anything else happened. It is vital that we have an extended decommissioning scheme.
Of course, we must consider different fishing methods and how we should proceed. I accept that there is no possible way in which we can approach the problem by abandoning total allowable catches and quotas. That is a deficiency in the Scottish Fishermen's Federation document. We cannot go back to a world in which there are no controls, in which people simply go out and fish and conservation is done by voluntary effort.
A programme on television the other night showed what had happened to the Canadian fishing industry. The producers went around the fishing ports in Canada and the film showed the absolute devastation that had occurred. It is in order to avoid that devastation that we all want a rational policy. I hope that the Minister will make it clear at the end of the debate, so that there is no poison in the atmosphere, that a proper discussion is being had with the industry. I plead again for an increase in decommissioning.
I shall make only one more point because I am not like the after-dinner speaker who said that he had not known what was expected of him so he had prepared a long speech and a short speech and had decided to give both. I shall give only the short one. A useful proposal has been made on monitoring and inspection in other EC countries. Yet we have heard all this before. For goodness' sake, it must stick this time. There must be a proper inspection and control policy in other fishing nations. I know that other people do not always play by the book.
In terms of black landings or trying to pull a fast one, the fishermen of the north-east coast are no more saints than the fishermen in the south-west or anywhere else. However, our fishermen are still a damned sight better than those in most of the other countries. We demand parity, and I hope controlled parity, of inspection. That is one of the most important measures to take forward.
In a sense, the court case presents a window of opportunity that should be used to discuss and present rational policies. I hope that the Government will grasp that opportunity and will not ruin the relationships that have been built up. Under the ministry of the present Minister, there has been a change in attitude. Discussion has been much freer and there has been much more willingness to listen. My problem is that, although Ministers have listened a good deal, so far they have not given very much. In that respect, I hope that the future will be a bit better for fishermen.

Mr. David Harris: It is a pleasure to know that you are chairing this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am aware of your constituency interest in fishing, especially that which is practised from the Barbican. 1 am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, has left the Chamber because, although I welcomed the general thrust of his Committee's investigation and report, I wished to take him to task over some of his remarks.
In his reference to the importance of the industry, my hon. Friend may have given the wrong impression by stating just the bald output figure. Of course, the industry is of much greater significance than just the total value of

its catch. The jobs of many people on shore depend on the catch, but it goes much wider than that because our lifeboats are manned by fishermen and the very fabric of many villages and fishing ports depends on fishing. If the industry were taken away, not only the ports but communities that have been there for generations would decline. Therefore, there is also an important social side to the industry.
I am afraid that I must also take my hon. Friend to task over his remarks about the quality of representation of the fishing industry in the west country. My hon. Friend may have been getting at me: I do not know. Some fine people lead the industry in the west country and in that context I took exception to some of my hon. Friend's remarks.
The Minister's announcement of the suspension of the days-at-sea restrictions has been greeted—certainly in the west country and, I suspect, all around our coasts—by relief rising to jubilation. I hope that the suspension of the scheme marks the end of the whole concept of the days-at-sea restrictions. My position and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) and for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) is well known. We have been opposed to the days-at-sea scheme because we think that it is unfair and unworkable.
I have always told the industry that there is no point in just opposing the scheme but that it has to present viable alternative proposals. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations should be given full credit for doing just that in a comprehensive document that went far beyond what many of us expected from the industry. The industry did not present a soft option but a well-thought-out scheme that would cause pain to the industry. That is because one cannot tackle the problem of conservation without painful measures. There is no easy way if the policy is to work.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which he has listened to the industry and tried to work with it. In the void created by his announcement today, I urge him to do as he has promised and hold serious talks with the industry both in England and Wales and in Scotland. I know that there is a divergence between the approaches to the problem in those two parts of the United Kingdom, but I believe that the way forward is contained in the NFFO document.
That document is not the complete answer, but it suggests, for example, the concept of closed areas, in which fishing would be restricted or even completely stopped, especially during the spawning season. That would be a courageous step and, although it would cause pain to fishermen, I believe that the Minister would be well advised to consider such proposals with great care. I am sure that they represent a better way forward than the days-at-sea restrictions, if only because if the Minister moves in that general direction he will have the general backing of the industry, whereas if by any chance he reverts to restrictions on days at sea, he will be on a confrontation course.
The NFFO is to be congratulated on its courage in taking the Government to court, at considerable financial risk to itself. I have always maintained that it was right to pursue its opposition in every constitutional way that it thought fit. I have always made it clear that I utterly opposed the actions of some fishermen who blockaded ports and invaded and occupied Ministry offices; indeed, I believe that those actions were illegal. However, although I deplore such direct action, which caused many other


people inconvenience, to say the least, I heartily applaud the way in which the NFFO took the matter to the courts and I am pleased with the outcome.
I shall now switch—quickly, because many hon. Members want to speak in the debate—to discussing the two issues before Ministers at the Fisheries Council, which have already been well rehearsed tonight. The first of those issues, which concerns the total allowable catch and the quotas, has special significance for the south-west, where it is causing alarm. I shall not go into all the details, because my colleagues and I have already met the Minister to press the case being made, especially by the Cornwall fish producers organisations, for changes in the proposals before Ministers.
Three major species would be affected if the proposals took effect. First, the Commission proposes a cut of up to 50 per cent. in the hake quota. Some countries, such as Ireland, benefit from the hake preference, whereas the south-west does not, and they will have their position safeguarded at the expense of my fishermen. The other species are monkfish and megrim. Channel cod and sole would also be affected to some extent. I do not have time to go into the details, but I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is well seized of the point.
The other danger, for which we in the south-west are in the front line, is Spanish, and to some extent Portuguese, accession, with those countries' consequential claim for greater penetration of the waters of the south-west, especially in the Irish box—the waters between the south-west and Ireland. That is extremely worrying for our fishermen, especially as it comes on top of the history of flag-of-convenience boats.
We have lived with the Spanish presence in our waters and we know what it means. As other hon. Members have said, the Spaniards completely disregard the rules on conservation. We have seen many examples of the tricks that they get up to, such as false holds, and catching undersized fish. This week I was delighted to hear that, in your own city, Madam Deputy Speaker, the court imposed a large fine on a Spanish boat that had been caught and, perhaps more significantly, suspended for two years its licence to fish in our waters. We want more of that when dealing with the Spaniards.
I would not be so crude as to use the phrase "double whammy", but our fishermen face a serious double threat of a possible reduction in the quotas of important species in the south-west and possible increased fishing by the Spaniards in the waters around our coasts. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do everything possible to remove those threats, although the House understands that he may be outvoted.
There is no real danger of the Spaniards gaining access to the North sea, partly because the alliance of member states is determined to keep them out, because they have never had access to those waters. The Irish box waters are a different matter and that is why the fishermen of the south-west feel so vulnerable. That is why I look to the Minister to defend their interests.

Mr. James Wallace: It always seems to fall to me to follow the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). I agreed with much that he said. He was right

to point out that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), in his capacity of Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, missed the point: that, although the catching side of the industry is important to many communities, the onshore jobs that that sector creates are just as important.
Those who are worried about any move towards individual transferable quotas, ITQs, are concerned that those quotas would be concentrated on a relatively small number of communities. That would not only lead to the loss of catching capacity in other communities, but the loss of onshore jobs. The whole fabric of many remote communities, where alternative employment is not readily found, would be damaged.
I do not intend to criticise the Minister for the time he took. He got his defence in early when he said that he would take interventions, but he would not take criticism. I accept that.
The time taken up by the contributions from the Front-Bench spokesmen and other hon. Members demonstrates that three hours is inadequate for a debate on fishing. In fact, tonight we are holding two debates, possibly even three. The first debate is the normal one held in advance of the December meeting of the Fisheries Council. We are also debating the contents of the Select Committee report. It would have been far better to separate those debates, although no doubt hon. Members will have an opportunity to repeat some of the points raised tonight in tomorrow's sitting of European Standing Committee A.
The 1994 TACs will be negotiated at the weekend. They are still clouded in mystery because the negotiations with Norway are not yet complete, unless something has happened within the past 12 hours. I understand that the Norwegians have made substantial demands with regard to some of the pelagic species. I hope that our Ministers and officials will be firm in their negotiations with them and the House will, I am sure, do anything that it can tonight to strengthen the hand of the Minister.
An important factor with regard to the pelagic fishery is the continuation of the flexibility across the 4 deg. line. In recent years that has had an important part to play in that fishery and I hope that it is kept in place. I have made representations to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that there is nothing special about the cut-off date of 31 December. Last year, after that date had passed, we suffered exceptionally bad weather, as I am sure hon. Members will remember. Fishermen were forced to make hazardous journeys to ports on the west coast of Scotland because they were not allowed to land their catches for trans-shipment at ports such as Lerwick because the flexibility had ended on 31 December. I know that the Under-Secretary was sympathetic to my representations when he responded earlier this year and, as a result of negotiations, I hope that he manages to obtain even more flexibility than we have had to date.
Every year, the same cry goes up, that there appears to be inconsistency and mystery about the basis on which the white fish TACs are recommended by the scientific community. This year it has been suggested that the haddock quota will go up while the cod and whiting quotas will be reduced. According to some of the scientific state of the art information, although it is accepted that cod and haddock stocks are under potential threat, the same cannot be said of whiting stocks. Why then is it proposed to increase the haddock TAC and reduce the whiting one?


There has to be some rationale introduction into that. We should recognise, too, that if there is a reduced cod quota and an increased haddock quota, when the two can be caught together, one is inviting illegal cod to be landed. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House, and the responsible parts of the industry, would strongly condemn that. Likewise, the experience of the fishermen is that saithe is in relative abundance and that perhaps the United Kingdom quota has been understated in past years. That is a continuing source of some concern, which I hope will be addressed this weekend.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Hams) referred also to the savage reduction in the TAC for hake. The reduction is of concern to fishermen not only in the south-west but in Scotland, as it is a very large cut for those communities which are dependent on fishing to take in one go. The important point is that it appears—certainly to the fishermen—that much of the reason for the reduction in the availability of hake is not due to anything that they have done; it is due to the intense pressure by Spanish and French fishing vessels. The proposals of the NFFO is that the TAC should be broken down into tighter management areas, or subdivision of existing areas. In that way, there may be an opportunity for our fishermen, particularly in the south-west, to be able to continue to prosecute the fishery —they have done that responsibly—and not have to suffer additionally for what effectively has been the over-fishing by others.
The question of hake take us on to the important issue of the Spanish and Portuguese Acts of Accession. We have seen the depletion of stocks of western hake following on from a moratorium on southern hake because of the gross over-fishing by the fishing vessels of those countries off the Spanish and Portuguese coasts and the south bay of Biscay.
I would challenge just how wide it is legally responsible for the European Union to go in amending the Act of Accession. It has been suggested that it may relate only to the basic list of vessels and to a consideration of the Irish box and that it would not be legally competent to extend the Act to the North sea, where there are also other factors —the Spanish have no track record in the North sea. If, as has been suggested, they are to have open access, but we are still going to maintain relative stability, it is not worth their while to come into the North sea, because they have no quota to fish. That suggests why the issue should not even be opened up. The concern must be that, if they have any access, it will be difficult to police, despite all the fine words and safeguards that have been mentioned.
The issue of fishing in the Irish box must concern my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). We are in a very different situation now from when the Acts of Accession were originally agreed. We have far fewer fish. We are in an era of conservation. It seems difficult to justify greater access for Spanish vessels to the Irish box at a time when we are having to reduce substantially the quota for one of the main species to be fished in that box.
I hope that the Minister will introduce his own proposals and win friends to support them. He was honest in saying that the industry has to know that he cannot necessarily deliver on this, but it appeared to me that he was making his alibi before he had even lost. I hope that he will not lose and that he will not be outvoted by 11 to one. I hope that he will try to win friends and get a solution that will satisfy the industry.
I shall now refer to the issue that has dominated much of the debate—days at sea—and the announcement that we had earlier from the Minister. I shall not repeat all the reasons why the days at sea restrictions have been strongly opposed, not only by the industry but by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, and by my party quite consistently. If the Minister had looked up only a few copies of Hansard he would have found out where we stood on the issue.
The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) suggested that the decision of the High Court was neutral. In a very technical and legal sense, it was. But if we examine what it said, it criticised the says at sea legislation on a number of grounds, queried whether it would do anything for conservation, and said that the legislation would severely prejudice the value of fishing vessels. It was not neutral in some of those comments. The Select Committee report uses strong words about the days at sea proposals and those words are repeated in the Labour party's amendment.
Where is the Government's policy on conservation after today's announcement? We have a suspended days at sea policy, a yellow card has been shown to the decommissioning scheme and the Minister lightly dismissed some of the technical measures. Basically, there is an effort to expedite the proceedings in the European Court of Justice and a chat with the European Commissioner.
We need a commitment to the continuation of the decommissioning scheme. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that we have to reduce capacity, but to imply that the decommissioning scheme may not continue. He said that decommissioning is all very well, but that we need something to back it up so that the good of decommissioning is not undone, and we accept that. However, in the arguments before the High Court, reference was made to a report by the Sea Fish Industry Authority, which showed that even the much-criticised decommissioning scheme in the 1980s reduced the overall fishing effort. It did not lead to an increase in fishing effort and was relatively successful. Therefore, decommissioning is one way to tackle the problem. It reduces capacity.
If the Minister wants to know how much we would spend on such a scheme, I answered that question at a press conference, given during the last general election campaign in a hotel in Aberdeen. I leave it to his researchers to find it out, because it was well publicised. [Laughter.] It was sufficiently well publicised in Scotland that we won far more seats in fishing areas than did the Conservative party.
The Minister should not dismisss some of the technical measures suggested by the NFFO and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, and many other bodies representing fishermen. He took only one specific from the NFFO's submission, but it suggested a whole range of other measures. I am sure that he has that submission in front of him. Other proposals include closure areas, the licensing of the industry and a minimum landing size.
He has a large agenda on which he can have discussions with the industry. If he does that in a constructive spirit, it can come up with proposals which will mean that days-at-sea restrictions will not be necessary. It is important to recognise that these are alternative proposals and that they should not be latched on to days-at-sea restrictions. If the Minister abandons days-at-sea and says that decommissioning is here to stay, he will achieve the


necessary good will and constructive approach to enable the industry to go forward, co-operating with the Government and getting in place some effective conservation measures.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for visiting the north of Ireland and the fishing ports of my constituency, where he took part in a robust exchange of views, which was of benefit to both sides. It is an indictment of the management of the fishing industry to do what I have done—stand on the beach and watch the burning of viable ships. The last time that happened in Ireland was when the Vikings drew their longships up to the Strang fjord and set them alight. Such actions are an appalling sign of the state of the fishing fleets of the north of Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Like other fishing communities, those in the north of Ireland are opposed to the days-at-sea concept set out in the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1992. They see it not as a conservation measure but as a fleet limitation or fleet reduction programme based on the multi-annual guidance programme.
One aspect of the decommissioning scheme that has not been mentioned today—I do not want to repeat what has been said about conservation—is that we need to have efficient, economic fishing units. We know that there is a limited catch, so fewer units of catch or production should pursue it. That is an additional reason why decommissioning should be a continuing part of the Government's policy. For those who continue in the industry, there should be a smaller number of vessels so that the economics of fishing are more sustainable than they can be when the catch is spread among a greater number of vessels. I endorse what other hon. Members have said. I hope that the decommissioning scheme will not only continue for the second and third years but be substantially enhanced.
The fishermen of Northern Ireland are diametrically opposed to the so-called conservation measure of tied-up boats. They see it as an uneven and unjust system. It is galling for the fishermen of Kilkeel and Ardglas to look out two or three miles across Carlingford lough and see Republic of Ireland fishermen fishing to their hearts' content without restriction. That is a mockery of the European concept of fish conservation.
Northern Ireland fishermen want equality of treatment. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture mentioned his visits to Portugal and Spain, where he saw the enormous Spanish fishing fleet. It is interesting that for that enormous Spanish fleet there are only 17 fishing inspectors, all of whom are based in the land-locked city of Madrid. We have 285 fish inspectors. It is a charade to say that there is any degree of enforcement against the Spanish and the Portuguese.
As other hon. Members have said, those fishing fleets strongly impinge in the Irish box and the Irish sea fishing areas. Between them, France, Spain and Portugal take 88 per cent. of the catch in those areas, leaving only 12 per cent. for the indigenous fishing industry.
Local fishermen do not feel that they are being listened to. They do not feel that their experience at sea and their knowledge of fish shoaling is sufficiently taken on board.

They are convinced that, in many instances, the scientific evidence is flawed, yet it appears to be the rock base on which all decisions are made. Will the Minister take the local fishermen's practical experience and knowledge on board, as well as the scientific evidence, when he comes to agree and fix quotas?
As to TACs, year after year the quota of the Republic of Ireland is not used, particularly of whiting. It is ludicrous —our boats are tied up and unable to fish because they have caught their quota, while our neighbours 10 miles down the coast do not achieve their permissible quota. Will the Minister use his position to contact his opposite number in the Republic of Ireland and ask him to transfer to the Northern Ireland fishermen the quota of the Republic's catch that it does not anticipate making this year? Such transfers have happened in the past. He should also make that a more permanent feature, rather than a gratuitous year-by-year endeavour; he might well find a willing ear.
The reductions that have been made will strike yet another devastating blow at the Irish fishing industry. I cannot go into all the details. Let me confine my remarks to the subject of herring, which has merely been touched on. The industry has been diminished almost to extinction and fishermen on the east coast of Ireland feel that the closure of the Douglas bank area from 21 September does not represent proper management. They strongly believe that, because the herring season has come later in the year than it used to, the Douglas bank closure should also take place later. The stocks are substantial, and I know that a review is in progress. It may be finished by June next year. I hope, however, that the results of the reconsideration will be implemented before September 1994.
I wish to draw attention to the plight of the fishing industry and the social consequences mentioned by the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee. A report prepared by the United Kingdom Sea Fish Industry Authority, entitled "Regional, Socio-Economic Study by the Fisheries Sector", states:
Here"—
in Northern Ireland—
there are currently very few alternative employment opportunities. Perhaps this is one area where the maintenance of fish and related industry employment should be a priority".
I hope that the Minister will take note of that.
I welcomed the Minister's announcement that the implementation of the days at sea provision would be abandoned for the duration of the court hearing at The Hague, but I support the contention of other hon. Members that that constitutes—de facto, if not de jure—the abandonment of an ill-conceived scheme that did not fulfil the purpose for which it was intended. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter in general, abandon the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 and give us a new set of proposals based on many of the fine ideas presented to him by the various fishing organisations, and by others, with their co-operation.
Ultimately, our fishermen know very well that it is in their interests for fishing to continue into the next century. They are more concerned about conservation than any of us. Given the chance, they will produce the real measures that will sustain both the industry and fish quantities. We need a partnership between the Government and the industry that will continue into the 21st century.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friends and I represent more than half


the Scottish fishing industry, which in turn represents rather more than half the United Kingdom industry. Is it not rather absurd that the procedures of the House do not even allow us to contribute properly to the annual fishing debate?

Madam Speaker: I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman and with other hon. Members representing fishing industries who have not been called tonight. I have looked at the list, and I appreciate that—although there were many interventions on the opening speeches—the two Front-Bench speakers took up an hour and 24 minutes. That is a considerable time, given the shortness of the debate.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Following on from that point of order, with which I have some sympathy, I should like to put on record my anger at the fact that the debate covers three separate issues. Ministers should have responded to the court case in a proper statement to the House. The matter should not have been dealt with by a written answer just before this important debate. There should have been adequate time for a considered response to the Select Committee report, which contains a great deal of work and many important suggestions and recommendations that ought to have been considered more carefully and in more time than we have had.
The real reason why we do not have time to discuss issues is the Government's contempt for procedures and for proper democratic scrutiny. It is not as if we are short of time in the parliamentary Session. The Government would rather run on auto-pilot than have Members of Parliament scrutinising legislation and discussing matters in a sensible way. Given that contempt, is it any surprise that relations have broken down between the usual channels? If that attitude continues, normal relations will not be restored for some time.

Mrs. Ewing: I speak as an hon. Member for whom the usual channels have no implications. Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the usual attitude of both Front Benches allows a debate on such a vital industry to be compressed every year into a short period shortly in advance of the Fisheries Council, where fundamental decisions are taken that affect our communities? Surely there must be a better way forward. Although Standing Committee A will help, there should be a full debate in the House at least twice a year on the fishing industry.

Mr. Morley: The problem is more to do with the procedures than with the Front-Bench speakers. In all fairness to the Minister, he allowed a great many interventions in his speech and made it clear that he was doing so.
The main points that I should like to address, which we have not had time properly to debate or scrutinise are the allocation of total allowable catches and the quota that the United Kingdom fishing industry will get at the outcome of the Fisheries Council. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider those issues when he replies.
Under the draft proposals for the North sea, the haddock allocation is to be reduced by 28 per cent., there is to be a marginal increase in the cod allocation, the whiting allocation is to be decreased by 25 per cent. and the plaice allocation is to be decreased by 16 per cent. There is a

potential problem with mixed fisheries of that kind. There is also a certain inconsistency to the scientific advice about the allocations. I remember a few years ago when the Minister said that scientists were recommending that whiting catches should be increased on the ground that whiting was a predator of cod stocks. Now it seems that whiting catches must be decreased. Such inconsistency makes one wary of that sort of scientific advice.
If there are to be mixed fisheries in the North sea and the haddock allocation is to be increased by 28 per cent., there will be problems in terms of discards of cod and whiting. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind at the Council of Ministers and try to equalise the figures so that the industry can operate on a more managed basis. Given the reduction in the plaice allocation in area 7 and given that plaice is traditionally used as a swap in negotiations with the Fisheries Council, a reduction in the allocation by 16 per cent. would inevitably restrict what the Minister can do.
The main problem for the south-west area is the dramatic proposed cut in the hake quota, to which several hon. Members referred. We all know that one reason for the proposed cuts has been the pressure on the hake stocks exerted by the Spanish vessels and the illegal catching of undersized hake.
I add my congratulations to those which have been expressed at the fact that at least one vessel has been adequately dealt with by a two-year suspension of its licence. I welcome that firm action on a vessel that was breaking every rule in the book and was caught red handed. We know that the Spanish presence is one reason why there is a suggestion that there should be a reduction in the monkfish allocation. I understand that we fish up to our full allocation of monkfish, but other member states do not. That is due to the attention of many Spanish vessels.
On the west coast there is a problem with the suggestion of a major reduction—about 66 per cent.—in the cod quota. I listened carefully to the Minister's comments about the pressure on west coast stocks and I acknowledge that point. Nevertheless, he will be aware that, if we have a quota reduction on that scale, there is a danger of the hake preference being implemented. That would mean that United Kingdom fishermen would lose out to the Republic of Ireland. That would affect the Northern Ireland fishery. That is a serious problem. If that preference were implemented, our total share of the cod catch in the west coast area would decline from 42·7 to 28·3 per cent. I hope that the Minister will do everything he can to ensure that the hake preference is not implemented in the west coast area and that our fishing industry in that area is protected.
The treaty of accession for Spain and Portugal has been mentioned. The point has been well made. I endorse and support the concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members about the implications of having Spanish and Portuguese vessels operating in what was the former Irish box area.
In the limited time left to me, I should like to deal with the High Court case. That is crucial in terms of planning future fisheries policy and meeting multi-annual guidance programmes. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations did the industry a favour by taking the case to the High Court and being successful. I remind the Minister that it was supported by Northern Ireland fishing organisations and, although the Scottish fishermen did not


contribute financially, I know from talks with many in the Scottish industry, that they are pleased with the outcome and the reference to the European Court.
However, that court case should not have happened. We should not have been in a position in which the Government were taken to court by fishermen's organisations because a policy was unpopular and despised and was considered unworkable. We warned the Government that the days-at-sea measures were unpopular, unworkable and of debatable value. We argued that the Government should be seeking co-operation with the industry for a package of measures with an effective decommissioning scheme at its heart. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) said, we recognise that when dealing with effort limitation and conservation we must have a package of measures. Whatever we have, an effective decommissioning scheme must be a central part of it.
We also want to see measures such as the technical measures that the industry has been challenged to come up with—it has responded favourably to that challenge. We want to look at closed areas, particularly spawning areas, and we want to see effective management agreements and enforcement. Over the years, our position has been backed by a House of Lords Select Committee report, every industry producer organisation, every industry fishing association, the processors and hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent fishing communities.

Mr. Sebastian Coe: I do not wish to intrude on private grief, but the hon. Gentleman is suggesting a slight change in the history of those debates. The discussion tonight on days-at sea would have been irrelevant had it not been for the ill-discipline of Opposition Members on the night the orders were before the House, when 20 or so Opposition Members could not stay behind for a three-line Whip to get rid of the proposals.

Mr. Morley: That is nonsense. If a few more hon. Members from fishing constituencies had joined us in the Lobby, the measures might have been defeated. Those measures should never have been rammed through the House without the Government having listened to the reasonable arguments expressed on both sides of the House. It is yet another example of the Government's not giving proper consideration to other people's views or allowing proper scrutiny of Bills, with the result that they face a humiliating U-turn in the courts.
The Government should deal with the matter more effectively. When the Minister heard the court result, he initially shrugged if off by saying that the fish had lost the case. I am only glad that he did not blame single parent fish, as single parents seem to be blamed for all the Government's problems. The Minister now says that he is regrouping after the court loss. It is not regrouping but retreating. His measures were shot down in flames as they did not stand up to critical examination.
I remind the Minister of the evidence that was put before the High Court and influenced its decision to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice. The court accepted evidence that the days-at-sea measures were unfair and were in the interests of neither the market nor conservation. The court went on to consider the fact that

the Government had chosen to rely on using market forces rather than on decommissioning. Market forces operated by expanding rather than reducing the United Kingdom fleet. The use of market forces and blind dogmatism, rather than sensible regulation and co-operation with various sectors of industry, are not unique to the fishing industry. The Government have used market forces in other legislation, with the same disastrous results.
It is not too late for the Government to think again about the whole matter. It is not good enough for the Minister to talk about the failure of the original decommissioning scheme, which was designed for different kinds of ships and was poorly implemented and supervised. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was the Minister responsible for that scheme at the time. It is therefore unreasonable to suggest that this decommissioning scheme should be tarred with the same brush.
If we are to manage the conservation of our fisheries effectively, it must be done with the industry's co-operation. It must have the support of those who will carry out the measures, and the measures must be effective, fair and justified. The Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992 never fulfilled those criteria.
I hope that when the Minister negotiates a workable conservation scheme with his European colleagues, he will recognise that the industry has responded to his request for suggestions and has made detailed proposals. As he knows, it has trialled many of the experiments with technical conservation gear, with encouraging results, and I believe that they can be built on further.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that he has lost the heart of the Bill and needs to think again about those measures. Rather than being dominated by blind dogmatism and an arrogant disregard for the democratic procedures of the House, he should sit down with the industry to discuss its suggestions seriously and bring forward proposals that will command respect, benefit our fishing industry and properly conserve our fish stocks.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): This has been a valuable debate and many constructive points have come out of it. However, it is fair to say that the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) was extremely important. It highlighted, from a top-of-the-mountain view, the fact that conservation is desperately important and that no one had come forward in the debate with constructive ideas on how to meet the same effort control that may have been taken out by the loss of the days-at-sea restriction.
This is a most important subject, especially for the highlands and islands of Scotland, where there is little alternative employment. That is why the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) was right to say that we must consider the interests of onshore and offshore concerns alike—including the processors and, ultimately, the housewife, who is the important customer of the fishing industry.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Minister find time to respond to what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) described as the crisis in the Scottish salmon industry? I know that the Minister has many topics to cover, but he must know that that crisis is profound. Will he at least tell the industry that the


Government regard the status quo as unacceptable and that they will return to the European Community to try to obtain stronger safeguards?

Sir Hector Monro: Certainly the salmon industry is very important to Scotland, particularly to the area that the hon. Gentleman represents. We have a minimum import price which is lower than I would like, and a reference price, which will come in on 1 January and which I hope will be much higher. I appreciate the fact that 6,000 jobs are at risk in Scotland if the salmon industry does not flourish. That is why it is important to make every effort inthe Commission and the Community to find the right solution.
Norway is producing 180,000 tonnes, while Scotland produces 45,000, and we have been swamped this autumn by sales from Norway to the continent. That has had a serious impact on the price. We are holding regular talks with the Commissioner; the Minister is in touch with Commissioner Paleokrassas, and I hope that there will be a chance to raise the matter next week at the Council in Brussels.
Fish are an important natural resource and most of our stocks are under great pressure. We have to reduce the amount of fish being landed—a fact that was not disputed when the court referred the matter to the European Court of Justice. We know that there are no easy or painless solutions and that we cannot rely solely on technical measures or on gear selectivity.
In the coming weeks and months, we must review in detail the many constructive ideas suggested by the Scottish and English industries and by the independent bodies that responded to the consultative document, in an attempt to find the right solution, both to restrict fishing and to make certain that our fishermen operate a profitable industry.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Sir Hector Monro: I will not. I have only a few minutes left, and members of the hon. Gentleman's party have intervened umpteen times in this debate.
The industry is beginning to realise that effective measures to control effort are essential, and we must work together to put something in place as soon as possible. Everyone accepts that days at sea are out for the count, at least for the coming year, so, like last January, the industry will be starting with a clean sheet.
What steps can the industry take? I should like to comment on the black fish landings that are prevalent in Scotland and are the cause of major worry to leaders in the industry. Sophisticated organisations are handling black fish and transporting them south to the processors. That must stop; it is getting us a bad reputation in the European Community. We give credit to the officials in the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency who have helped to run the industry, as have others. They have made progress in enforcing the provisions. This year, there have been 94 successful prosecutions over a nine-month period, compared with 78 last year over a 12-month period. 'The black fish issue is a sad development that undermines the future of our industry.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister give way?

Sir Hector Monro: No, the hon. Lady has intervened several times.
The recent court decision to refer the days at sea restrictions to the European Court was not a victory for fishermen and was a major setback for conservation. We must find something to put in place, and it will take quite a long time to achieve that. We shall examine urgently what measures—technical and effort control—are available and have discussions with the industry. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has frequent meetings with representatives of the industry in England, as I do in Scotland—and will be doing so again this week. It is extremely important to establish a policy which is acceptable to the industry and the Commission and which, most importantly, will have an impact on conservation.
Important issues concerning Spain and Portugal have been raised in the debate. The efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister are beyond criticism. He raised the issue in the October meeting of the Council and put a stop to the efforts of other countries to force the issue through. The discussions continued through the November Council, and we shall return to the subject next week when he and I shall be in Brussels representing the Government.

Mrs. Ewing: rose—

Sir Hector Monro: I shall not give way.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, there is no doubt that we shall do everything possible to ensure that the view of the United Kingdom Government prevails. We have made it absolutely clear that we shall not accept a blank cheque. We do not wish to see additional fishing in the North sea and we want relative stability to be retained. We want to ensure that the review that has to take place now only comes into force in 1996, with amendments to the policy that are acceptable to us—including a decision to consider the Irish box, which expires on 1 December 1995. The Belgian presidency is working on an alternative and I hope that we can consider that issue in a constructive light next week.
I emphasise that the United Kingdom view is firm and that we shall be fighting as hard as possible for our fishermen.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for showing his characteristic courtesy in giving way. Earlier, I asked the Minister of State about the need to supervise other maritime industries to ensure that they did not impinge badly on the fishing industry. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the installation of the gas pipeline between the south of Scotland and Northern Ireland does not damage the interests of our fishermen who fish those waters?

Sir Hector Monro: I heard the hon. Gentleman's question when he originally asked it. I have been unable in the intervening time to establish exactly what contact the fishing industry has had with the gas and oil industry. Normally, the relationship is good, and we shall follow up the issue and ensure that no unnecessary hiccups occur in the pipeline between Northern Ireland and Scotland.
I emphasise the importance of next week's negotiations in relation to Spain and Portugal, and the issue of catches and quotas. There is immense pressure on the west coast —the haddock stock will certainly go down in the Irish sea and the western approaches, whereas it will go up in the North sea. I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that discards are worrying—it is unattractive to


see good fish wasted. The problem is how to enforce quotas if we do not have strict regulations covering the catches that are taken ashore.
There has been much discussion about decommissioning. It is fair to say that the current scheme has been successful. It involved 140 boats, or 5,400 tonnes, of which 46 boats, or 1,400 tonnes, came from Scotland. I cannot understand why Labour Members are so suspicious when we discuss decommissioning. If we are considering overall fishing policy, we should consider decommissioning as well.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Sir Hector Monro: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Salmond: Why not?

Sir Hector Monro: Because the hon. Gentleman asks so many damned silly questions.
At a time when we are bringing forward new policies —we hope in conjunction with the English and Scottish fisheries organisations—we must consider all the issues. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, we cannot consider decommissioning alone; it must be done in conjunction with other efforts.
I thought it important that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) put on record the fact that the Labour party is giving a firm pledge to commit £75 million to decommissioning and that it expects that further effort restrictions will be required. I was glad that he also linked decommissioning to effort restrictions. It is important that they are acknowledged as complementary.
I am also glad that the hon. Gentleman and I are as one on the matter of ITQs. The industry is not keen on them. The hon. Gentleman made the point that relatively wealthy areas would buy up the quota, taking it away from the less-well-off areas, especially those in the highlands and islands. Inevitably, that would have a bad effect on fishing in those areas. Hon. Members rightly mentioned dependent areas, which are important in the north. I am glad that objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) are likely to apply. It is important that the highlands and islands now have objective 1 status, plus help from the enterprise companies.
My hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) gave, as I expected, a warm welcome to our decision on days at sea. We will bear in mind what was said about fishing in the western approaches.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) referred to inspectors from Spain. His facts were not quite right. Spain is recruiting 25 more fisheries officers, with another 25 next year. We are looking carefully at the Douglas bank herring box under the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management review next year.
The house agrees that the fishing industry is vital to many of our coastal communities. It has always played a distinctive part in the economy of these islands. We must take the necessary steps to ensure the long-term future of the industry. The policies promoted by the Government are designed to achieve that objective and I commend the motion to the House.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 312.

Division No. 32]
[10.18pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Denham, John


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dewar, Donald


Ainger, Nick
Dixon, Don


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dobson, Frank


Allen, Graham
Donohoe, Brain H.


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dowd, Jim


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Armstrong, Hilary
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ashton, Joe
Eagle, Ms Angela


Austin-Walker, John
Eastham, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Enright, Derek


Barnes, Harry
Etherington, Bill


Barron, Kevin
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Battle, John
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bayley, Hugh
Fatchett, Derek


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Faulds, Andrew


Beggs, Roy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Fisher, Mark


Bell, Stuart
Flynn, Paul


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Foulkes, George


Benton, Joe
Fraser, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Fyfe, Maria


Berry, Dr. Roger
Galloway, George


Betts, Clive
Gapes, Mike


Blair, Tony
Garrett, John


Blunkett, David
George, Bruce


Boateng, Paul
Gerrard, Neil


Boyes, Roland
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bradley, Keith
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Godsiff, Roger


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gould, Bryan


Burden, Richard
Graham, Thomas


Byers, Stephen
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Callaghan, Jim
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hain, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Hall, Mike


Cann, Jamie
Hanson, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hardy, Peter


Clapham, Michael
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hoey, Kate


Coffey, Ann
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cohen, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Connarty, Michael
Hood, Jimmy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbett, Robin
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Ingram, Adam


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Dafis, Cynog
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Davidson, Ian
Jamieson, David


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Janner, Greville


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Ieaun Wyn (Ynys Môn)






Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Purchase, Ken


Jowell, Tessa
Quin, Ms Joyce


Keen, Alan
Radice, Giles


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Randall, Stuart


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Raynsford, Nick


Khabra, Piara S.
Redmond, Martin


Kilfoyle, Peter
Reid, Dr John


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Rendel, David


Kirkwood, Archy
Richardson, Jo


Leighton, Ron
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Lewis, Terry
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Litherland, Robert
Rogers, Allan


Livingstone, Ken
Rooker, Jeff


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rooney, Terry


Loyden, Eddie
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rowlands, Ted


McAllion, John
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Salmond, Alex


McCartney, Ian
Sedgemore, Brain


Macdonald, Calum
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McFall, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McGrady, Eddie
Short, Clare


McKelvey, William
Simpson, Alan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McMaster, Gordon
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Madden, Max
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Snape, Peter


Madel, David
Soley, Clive


Mahon, Alice
Spearing, Nigel


Mandelson, Peter
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Steinberg, Gerry


Martlew, Eric
Stevenson, George


Maxton, John
Stott, Roger


Meacher, Michael
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Meale, Alan
Straw, Jack


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Milburn, Alan
Tipping, Paddy


Miller, Andrew
Tyler, Paul


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Vaz, Keith


Morgan, Rhodri
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Morley, Elliot
Wallace, James


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Walley, Joan


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wareing, Robert N


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Watson, Mike


Mowlam, Marjorie
Welsh, Andrew


Mudie, George
Wicks, Malcolm


Mullin, Chris
Wigley, Dafydd


Murphy, Paul
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wilson, Brian


O'Hara, Edward
Winnick, David


Olner, William
Wise, Audrey


O'Neill, Martin
Worthington, Tony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wray, Jimmy


Parry, Robert
Wright, Dr Tony


Patchett, Terry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pendry, Tom



Pickthall, Colin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Dennis Turner and


Pope, Greg
Mr. John Spellar.


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Alexander, Richard
Ashby, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Aspinwall, Jack


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Ancram, Michael
Baldry, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Banks, Matthew (Southport)





Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bates, Michael
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bellingham, Henry
French, Douglas


Bendall, Vivian
Fry, Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gale, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gallie, Phil


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Booth, Hartley
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Boswell, Tim
Gamier, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowden, Andrew
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bowis, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bradley, Keith
Gorst, John


Brazier, Julian
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Alan


Carttiss, Michael
Hawkins, Nick


Cash, William
Hawksley, Warren


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, Jerry


Churchill, Mr
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hendry, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hicks, Robert


Coe, Sebastian
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Colvin, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Congdon, David
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Conway, Derek
Horam, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Couchman, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cran, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunter, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jack, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jessel, Toby


Dicks, Terry
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dover, Den
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan, Alan
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
Kilfedder, Sir James


Durant, Sir Anthony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Knapman, Roger


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evennett, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Faber, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fabricant, Michael
Legg, Barry


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Leigh, Edward


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fishburn, Dudley
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Forman, Nigel
Lidington, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lightbown, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter






Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Luff, Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Madel, David
Soames, Nicholas


Maitland, Lady Olga
Speed, Sir Keith


Major, Rt Hon John
Spencer, Sir Derek


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Spink, Dr Robert


Marlow, Tony
Spring, Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sproat, Iain


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Steen, Anthony


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Stern, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Allan


Milligan, Stephen
Streeter, Gary


Mills, Iain
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sweeney, Walter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Sykes, John


Moate, Sir Roger
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Moss, Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter


Needham, Richard
Thomason, Roy


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Norris, Steve
Tracey, Richard


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Tredinnick, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trend, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patnick, Irvine
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Patten, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pawsey, James
Waller, Gary


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Ward, John


Pickles, Eric
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waterson, Nigel


Porter, David (Waveney)
Watts, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Powell, William (Corby)
Whitney, Ray


Rathbone, Tim
Whittingdale, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Ann


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Riddick, Graham
Wilkinson, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Willetts, David


Robathan, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wolfson, Mark


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wood, Timothy


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Yeo, Tim


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard



Sackville, Tom
Tellers for the Noes:


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House Divided: Ayes 309, Noes 272.

Division No. 33]
[10.34pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Alexander, Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)





Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Amess, David
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Ancram, Michael
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evennett, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Faber, David


Ashby, David
Fabricant, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baldry, Tony
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bates, Michael
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bendall, Vivian
French, Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fry, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gallie, Phil


Booth, Hartley
Gardiner, Sir George


Boswell, Tim
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, Andrew
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowis, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Gorst, John


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burns, Simon
Hague, William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butler, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Cash, William
Hawkins, Nick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawksley, Warren


Chapman, Sydney
Hayes, Jerry


Churchill, Mr
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hendry, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hicks, Robert


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coe, Sebastian
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Couchman, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cran, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jenkin, Bernard


Devlin, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Dickens, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan, Alan
Key, Robert


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dunn, Bob
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knapman, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)






Knox, Sir David
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kynoch, Georgee (Kincardine)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sackville, Tom


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Legg, Barry
Shaw, David (Dover)


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shersby, Michael


Lidington, David
Sims, Roger


Lightbown, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spencer, Sir Derek


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacKay, Andrew
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David
Spink, Dr Robert


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spring, Richard


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sproat, Iain


Madel, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malone, Gerald
Steen, Anthony


Mans, Keith
Stephen, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Allan


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sumberg, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sweeney, Walter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sykes, John


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Milligan, Stephen
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Iain
Thomason, Roy


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Moate, Sir Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thurnham, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Needham, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Nelson, Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tredinnick, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trend, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Norris, Steve
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Walden, George


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Ottaway, Richard
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard
Ward, John


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patnick, Irvine
Waterson, Nigel


Patten, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Whitney, Ray


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whittingdale, John


Pickles, Eric
Widdecombe, Ann


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilkinson, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wiletts, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Wilshire, David


Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Riddick, Graham
Wood, Timothy


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Robathan, Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn



Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Allen, Graham


Ainger, Nick
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)





Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Flynn, Paul


Armstrong, Hilary
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Ashton, Joe
Foulkes, George


Austin-Walker, John
Fraser, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fyfe, Maria


Barnes, Harry
Galloway, George


Barron, Kevin
Gapes, Mike


Battle, John
Garrett, John


Bayley, Hugh
George, Bruce


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Gerrard, Neil


Beggs, Roy
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bell, Stuart
Godsiff, Roger


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bennett, Andrew F.
Gould, Bryan


Benton, Joe
Graham, Thomas


Bermingham, Gerald
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Griffiths, Nigal (Edinburgh S)


Betts, Clive
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Blair, Tony
Grocott, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Gunnell, John


Boateng, Paul
Hain, Peter


Boyes, Roland
Hall, Mike


Bradley, Keith
Hanson, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Burden, Richard
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Byers, Stephen
Hinchliffe, David


Caborn, Richard
Hoey, Kate


Callaghan, Jim
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Canavan, Dennis
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cann, Jamie
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoyle, Doug


Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clelland, David
Hutton, John


Coffey, Ann
Illsley, Eric


Cohen, Harry
Ingram, Adam


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jamieson, David


Corbett, Robin
Janner, Greville


Corbyn, Jeremy
Johnston, Sir Russell


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cummings, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jowell, Tessa


Dafis, Cynog
Keen, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Khabra, Piara S.


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Denham, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Dewar, Donald
Leighton, Ron


Dixon, Don
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Terry


Donohoe, Brian H.
Litherland, Robert


Dowd, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Loyden, Eddie


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lynne, Ms Liz


Eastham, Ken
McAllion, John


Enright, Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Etherington, Bill
McCartney, Ian


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Macdonald, Calum


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McFall, John


Fatchett, Derek
McGrady, Eddie


Faulds, Andrew
McKelvey, William


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fisher, Mark
McLeish, Henry






McMaster, Gordon
Pickthall, Colin


McWilliam, John
Pike, Peter L.


Madden, Max
Pope, Greg


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Mahon, Alice
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Mandelson, Peter
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Primarolo, Dawn


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Purchase, Ken


Martlew, Eric
Quin, Ms Joyce


Maxton, John
Radice, Giles


Meacher, Michael
Randall, Stuart


Meale, Alan
Raynsford, Nick


Michael, Alun
Redmond, Martin


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Reid, Dr John


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Rendel, David


Milburn, Alan
Richardson, Jo


Miller, Andrew
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Morgan, Rhodri
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Morley, Elliot
Rogers, Allan


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Rooker, Jeff


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Rooney, Terry


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Rowlands, Ted


Mudie, George
Ruddock, Joan


Mullin, Chris
Salmond, Alex


Murphy, Paul
Sedgemore, Brian


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


O'Hara, Edward
Short, Clare


Olner, William
Simpson, Alan


O'Neill, Martin
Skinner, Dennis


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Parry, Robert
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Patchett, Terry
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Pendry, Tom
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)





Snape, Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Soley, Clive
Wareing, Robert N


Spearing, Nigel
Watson, Mike


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Welsh, Andrew


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wicks, Malcolm


Steinberg, Gerry
Wigley, Dafydd


Stevenson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Stott, Roger
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Wilson, Brian


Straw, Jack
Winnick, David


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Worthington, Tony


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wray, Jimmy


Tipping, Paddy
Wright, Dr Tony


Tyler, Paul
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Vaz, Keith



Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Tellers for the Noes:


Wallace, James
Mr. John Spellar and


Walley, Joan
Mr. Dennis Turner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9662/93, relating to guide prices for fishery products 1994, the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 9th December 1993 relating to total allowable catches and quotas for 1994, the Sixth Report from the Agriculture Committee of Session 1992–93 on the effects of conservation measures on the United Kingdom sea fishing industry (House of Commons Paper No. 620) and the Government's Response thereto contained in the Fifth Special Report from the Agriculture Committee of Session 1992–93 (House of Commons Paper No. 927); and supports the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom fishing industry for 1994 consistent with the requirements of conservation of fish stocks.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

COURT OF SESSION

That the draft Maximum Number of Judges (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 28th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 4.

Division No. 34]
[10.47 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Couchman, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Cran, James


Alexander, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amess, David
Day, Stephen


Ancram, Michael
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arbuthnot, James
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dicks, Terry


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dorrell, Stephen


Ashby, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aspinwall, Jack
Dover, Den


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan, Alan


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Baldry, Tony
Dunn, Bob


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dykes, Hugh


Bates, Michael
Eggar, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Beggs, Roy
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evennett, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Faber, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fabricant, Michael


Booth, Hartley
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boswell, Tim
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fishburn, Dudley


Bowden, Andrew
Forman, Nigel


Bowis, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bright, Graham
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
French, Douglas


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fry, Peter


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gale, Roger


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gallie, Phil


Budgen, Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Burns, Simon
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Burt, Alistair
Garnier, Edward



Butcher, John
Gill, Christopher


Butler, Peter
Gillan, Cheryl


Butterfill, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carrington, Matthew
Gorst, John


Carttiss, Michael
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Cash, William
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chapman, Sydney
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Churchill, Mr
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clappison, James
Hague, William


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coe, Sebastian
Hanley, Jeremy


Colvin, Michael
Hannam, Sir John


Congdon, David
Hargreaves, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Harris, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Haselhurst, Alan


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hawkins, Nick


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hayes, Jerry


Cormack, Patrick
Heald, Oliver





Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Hendry, Charles
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Robert
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Norris, Steve


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Horam, John
Ottaway, Richard


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Rendel, David


Jenkin, Bernard
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Johnston, Sir Russell
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sackville, Tom


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kirkwood, Archy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)



Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shersby, Michael


Knox, Sir David
Sims, Roger


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Legg, Barry
Soames, Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Speed, Sir Keith


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lidington, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lightbown, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lord, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Luff, Peter
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


Lynne, Ms Liz
Stephen, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stewart, Allan


Maclean, David
Streeter, Gary


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sumberg, David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Madel, David
Sykes, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marlow, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thurnham, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Milligan, Stephen
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Tredinnick, David


Moate, Sir Roger
Trend, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Trotter, Neville


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moss, Malcolm
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Needham, Richard
Walden, George


Nelson, Anthony
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wallace, James


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waller, Gary






Ward, John
Wilshire, David


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waterson, Nigel
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Wells, Bowen
Wolfson, Mark


Whitney, Ray
Wood, Timothy


Whittingdale, John
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wiggin, Sir Jerry



Wigley, Dafydd
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Willetts, David
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.




NOES


Barnes, Harry



Cryer, Bob
Tellers For the Noes:


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


Wise, Audrey
Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

WATER AND SEWERAGE (NORTHERN IRELAND)

That the draft Water and Sewerage Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 2nd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 129.

Division No. 35]
[10.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Churchill, Mr


Aitken, Jonathan
Clappison, James


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Coe, Sebastian


Ancram, Michael
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Congdon, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Conway, Derek


Ashby, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Aspinwall, Jack
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Couchman, James


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bates, Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Batiste, Spencer
Day, Stephen


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bellingham, Henry
Devlin, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dover, Den


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Duncan, Alan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Booth, Hartley
Dunn, Bob


Boswell, Tim
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dykes, Hugh


Bowden, Andrew
Eggar, Tim


Bowis, John
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bright, Graham
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evennett, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Faber, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fabricant, Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burns, Simon
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burt, Alistair
Fishburn, Dudley


Butler, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Butterfill, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carrington, Matthew
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Cash, William
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
French, Douglas


Chapman, Sydney
Fry, Peter





Gale, Roger
Malone, Gerald


Gallie, Phil
Mans, Keith


Gardiner, Sir George
Marland, Paul


Garnier, Edward
Marlow, Tony


Gill, Christopher
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gorst, John
Merchant, Piers


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Milligan, Stephen


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Grylls, Sir Michael
Monro, Sir Hector


Hague, William
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Needham, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawkins, Nick
Norris, Steve


Hayes, Jerry
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heald, Oliver
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ottaway, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Page, Richard


Hicks, Robert
Paice, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patnick, Irvine


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pawsey, James


Horam, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rendel, David


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Richards, Rod


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jenkin, Bernard
Robathan, Andrew


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Tom


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkwood, Archy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, Sir David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Soames, Nicholas


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Speed, Sir Keith


Legg, Barry
Spencer, Sir Derek


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sproat, Iain


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lord, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Luff, Peter
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


Lynne, Ms Liz
Stephen, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David
Stewart, Allan


McLoughlin, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Madel, David
Sweeney, Walter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sykes, John






Tapsell, Sir Peter
Ward, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Waterson, Nigel


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Thomason, Roy
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Whittingdale, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Willetts, David


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wilshire, David


Tracey, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Trend, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Trotter, Neville
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian
Yeo, Tim


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walden, George



Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wallace, James
Mr. James Arbuthnot and


Waller, Gary
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Hoon, Geoffrey


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Hoyle, Doug


Ashton, Joe
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Barnes, Harry
Hutton, John


Battle, John
Illsley, Eric


Bayley, Hugh
Ingram, Adam


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Beggs, Roy
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Benton, Joe
Kilfoyle, Peter


Bermingham, Gerald
Lewis, Terry


Betts, Clive
Llwyd, Elfyn


Boyes, Roland
Loyden, Eddie


Bradley, Keith
McAllion, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
McAvoy, Thomas


Burden, Richard
Macdonald, Calum


Caborn, Richard
McFall, John


Callaghan, Jim
McKelvey, William


Canavan, Dennis
Mackinlay, Andrew


Chisholm, Malcolm
McMaster, Gordon


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
McWilliam, John


Coffey, Ann
Madden, Max


Cohen, Harry
Mahon, Alice


Connarty, Michael
Mandelson, Peter


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Martlew, Eric


Davidson, Ian
Meale, Alan


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Denham, John
Milburn, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dixon, Don
Morley, Elliot


Donohoe, Brian H.
Mowlam, Marjorie


Dowd, Jim
Mudie, George


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mullin, Chris


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Eagle, Ms Angela
O'Hara, Edward


Eastham, Ken
Olner, William


Etherington, Bill
O'Neill, Martin


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Pickthall, Colin


Fyfe, Maria
Pike, Peter L.


Galloway, George
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Garrett, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Gerrard, Neil
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Primarolo, Dawn


Godsiff, Roger
Radice, Giles


Golding, Mrs Llin
Reid, Dr John


Graham, Thomas
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Robertson, Peter (Belfast E)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Gunnell, John
Rooker, Jeff


Hanson, David
Rooney, Terry


Hardy, Peter
Sedgemore, Brain


Hoey, Kate
Short, Clare


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Skinner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Hood, Jimmy
Spearing, Nigel





Spellar, John
Welsh, Andrew


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wigley, Dafydd


Steinberg, Gerry
Wise, Audrey


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Worthington, Tony


Straw, Jack
Wray, Jimmy


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)



Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Tellers for the Noes:


Walley, Joan
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


Wareing, Robert N

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before you put the Questions on the next two motions I thought that it might be prudent to check what happened in the Committees that considered the motions. I went to the Vote Office and was told that the reports on the Committees in which the orders were considered are not yet available and cannot be made available to hon. Members. Therefore, I believe that it would be wrong to put the Questions when the House cannot know anything other than that the Committee considered the instruments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is in order for the motions to be moved. The matter he raised is a matter for the Government.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

INSURANCE COMPANIES ACCOUNTS

That the draft Companies Act 1985 (Insurance Companies Accounts) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 23 November, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 127.

Division No. 36]
[11.11 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Alexander, Richard
Budgen, Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Burns, Simon


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butler, Peter


Ancram, Michael
Butterfill, John


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carttiss, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Cash, William


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Chapman, Sydney


Baldry, Tony
Churchill, Mr


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clappison, James


Bates, Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Batiste, Spencer
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Beggs, Roy
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bellingham, Henry
Coe, Sebastian


Bendall, Vivian
Colvin, Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Congdon, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Booth, Hartley
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Boswell, Tim
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Cran, James


Bowden, Andrew
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bowis, John
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brandreth, Gyles
Day, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bright, Graham
Devlin, Tim


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Dover, Den






Duncan, Alan
Legg, Barry


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Leigh, Edward


Dunn, Bob
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dykes, Hugh
Lidington, David


Eggar, Tim
Lightbown, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lord, Michael


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Luff, Peter


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evennett, David
Maclean, David


Faber, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Madel, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fishburn, Dudley
Malone, Gerald


Forman, Nigel
Mans, Keith


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marland, Paul


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Marlow, Tony


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


French, Douglas
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fry, Peter
Mates, Michael


Gale, Roger
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gallie, Phil
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gardiner, Sir George
Merchant, Piers


Gamier, Edward
Milligan, Stephen


Gill, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Gillen, Cheryl
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gorst, John
Moate, Sir Roger


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moss, Malcolm


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Needham, Richard


Grylls, Sir Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Hague, William
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hannam, Sir John
Norris, Steve


Hargreaves, Andrew
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Page, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Paice, James


Heald, Oliver
Patnick, Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pawsey, James


Hendry, Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hicks, Robert
Pickles, Eric


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Powell, William (Corby)


Horam, John
Rathbone, Tim


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Richards, Rod


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Robathan, Andrew


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hunter, Andrew
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jack, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jessel, Toby
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, David (Dover)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knapman, Roger
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knox, Sir David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Soames, Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Speed, Sir Keith


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)





Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Trotter, Neville


Spink, Dr Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spring, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sproat, Iain
Walden, George


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waller, Gary


Steen, Anthony
Ward, John


Stephen, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stem, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Stewart, Allan
Wells, Bowen


Streeter, Gary
Whitney, Ray


Sumberg, David
Whittingdale, John


Sweeney, Walter
Widdecombe, Ann


Sykes, John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Willetts, David


Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Thomason, Roy
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Yeo, Tim


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Townend, John (Bridlington)



Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Andrew MacKay and


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Derek Conway.


Trend, Michael





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Hanson, David


Ainger, Nick
Hoey, Kate


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Ashton, Joe
Home Robertson, John


Barnes, Harry
Hood, Jimmy


Battle, John
Hoon, Geoffrey


Bayley, Hugh
Hoyle, Doug


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Beith, Rt Hon A.J.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Benton, Joe
Hutton, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Illsley, Eric


Betts, Clive
Ingram, Adam


Boyes, Roland
Johnston, Sir Russell


Bradley, Keith
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Burden, Richard
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Caborn, Richard
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Callaghan, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cann, Jamie
Kirkwood, Archy


Chisholm, Malcolm
Lewis, Terry


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Coffey, Ann
Lynne, Ms Liz


Cohen, Harry
McAllion, John


Cryer, Bob
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Macdonald, Calum


Davidson, Ian
McFall, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
McKelvey, William


Denham, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dewar, Donald
McMaster, Gordon


Dixon, Don
McWilliam, John


Donohoe, Brian H.
Madden, Max


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mahon, Alice


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mandelson, Peter


Eagle, Ms Angela
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Eastham, Ken
Martlew, Eric


Enright, Derek
Maxton, John


Etherington, Bill
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Milburn, Alan


Flynn, Paul
Morley, Elliot


Fraser, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fyfe, Maria
Mudie, George


Galloway, George
Mullin, Chris


Garrett, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Gerrard, Neil
O'Hara, Edward


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Olney, William


Godsiff, Roger
Patchett, Terry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pickthall, Colin


Graham, Thomas
Pike, Peter L.


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gunnell, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)






Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Primarolo, Dawn
Steinberg, Gerry


Radice, Giles
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Reid, Dr John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rendel, David
Wallace, James


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Wareing, Robert N


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Welsh, Andrew


Rooker, Jeff
Wigley, Dafydd


Rooney, Terry
Wise, Audrey


Sedgemore, Brian
Wray, Jimmy


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Tellers for the Noes:


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Eddie Loyden and


Spellar, John
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Beith: Further to my previous point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In similar circumstances, the occupant of the Chair has given the Government the opportunity not to move an order when the necessary papers are not available. The House is not in possession of the Committee report relating to the next motion on the Order Paper, which is the only way in which right hon. and hon. Members can know whether a vote took place or whether substantial objections to the order were raised in Committee.
Madam Speaker is responsible for the printing and accuracy of the reports of proceedings of the House. Therefore, it also falls upon the Chair to be concerned if those proceedings are not available to the House when they are required. It seems to me, and should appear to Ministers who are present, that it is an abuse of the procedures of the House to attempt to make the House vote on a motion for which the necessary papers are not available. I believe that that view is shared by some Conservative Members.

Sir Donald Thompson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would not it be better to adopt the practice of voting in our seats as all the votes are spurious?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Standing Orders are clear on standing and sitting, and the present circumstances are not appropriate. It is for the Government to decide whether they wish to move a motion. The Chair's responsibility is to call the motion.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

INSURANCE ACCOUNTS DIRECTIVE

That the draft Insurance Accounts Directive (Miscellaneous Insurance Undertakings) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 119.

Division No. 37]
[11.25 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Baldry, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bates, Michael


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Batiste, Spencer


Amess, David
Beggs, Roy


Arbuthnot, James
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Ashby, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Aspinwall, Jack
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Booth, Hartley


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Boswell, Tim





Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hannam, Sir John


Bowden, Andrew
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bowis, John
Harris, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Haselhurst, Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Hawkins, Nick


Brazier, Julian
Hayes, Jerry


Bright, Graham
Heald, Oliver


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hendry, Charles


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hicks, Robert


Budgen, Nicholas
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Burns, Simon
Hogg, Rt hon Douglas (G'tham)


Burt, Alistair
Horam, John


Butler, Peter
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Butterfill, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Carrington, Matthew
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Carttiss, Michael
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cash, William
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunter, Andrew


Chapman, Sydney
Jack, Michael


Clappison, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jessel, Toby


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coe, Sebastian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Colvin, Michael
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Congdon, David
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Key Robert


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Kilfedder, Sir James


Couchman, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cran, James
Knapman, Roger


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Day, Stephen
Knox, Sir David


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Devlin, Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dover, Den
Legg, Barry


Duncan, Alan
Leigh, Edward


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Dunn, Bob
Lidington, David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lightbown, David


Dykes, Hugh
Lord, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Luff, Peter


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
MacKay, Andrew


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Maclean, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evennett, David
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Faber, David
Madel, David


Fabricant, Michael
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Malone, Gerald


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mans, Keith


Fishburn, Dudley
Marland, Paul


Forman, Nigel
Marlow, Tony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


French, Douglas
Mates, Michael


Gale, Roger
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gallie, Phil
Merchant, Piers


Gardiner, Sir George
Milligan, Stephen


Garnier, Edward
Mills, Iain


Gill, Christopher
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gillan, Cheryl
Moate, Sir Roger


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Monro, Sir Hector


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gorst, John
Moss, Malcolm


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Nelson, Anthony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Grylls, Sir Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hague, William
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Norris, Steve


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hampson, Dr Keith
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hanley, Jeremy
Ottaway, Richard






Page, Richard
Streeter, Gary


Paice, James
Sweeney, Walter


Patnick, Irvine
Sykes, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Rathbone, Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thomason, Roy


Richards, Rod
Thompson, sir Donald (C'er V)


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robathan, Andrew
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thurnham, Peter


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tracey, Richard


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Tredinnick, David


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Trend, Michael


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Trotter, Neville


Sackville, Tom
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Ward, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shersby, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Sims, Roger
Wells, Bowen


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Whitney, Ray


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Whittingdale, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Widdecombe, Ann


Soames, Nicholas
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Speed, Sir Keith
Wilkinson, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Willetts, David


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spink, Dr Robert
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Spring, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Sproat, Iain
Wood, Timothy


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Yeo, Tim


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Steen, Anthony



Stephen, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and


Stewart, Allan
Mr Derek Conway.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Enright, Derek


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Etherington, Bill


Ashton, Joe
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Flynn, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Fyfe, Maria


Battle, John
Galloway, George


Bayley, Hugh
Garrett, John


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Gerrard, Neil


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Benton, Joe
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bermingham, Gerald
Graham, Thomas


Betts, Clive
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Boyes, Roland
Gunnell, John


Bradley, Keith
Hanson, David


Burden, Richard
Hoey, Kate


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coffey, Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Illsley, Eric


Davidson, Ian
Johnston, Sir Russell


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Denham, John
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dewar, Donald
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Dixon, Don
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dowd, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lewis, Terry


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Llwyd, Elfyn





Loyden, Eddie
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


McAllion, John
Primarolo, Dawn


McAvoy, Thomas
Radice, Giles


Macdonald, Calum
Reid, Dr John


McFall, John
Rendel, David


McKelvey, William
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


McMaster, Gordon
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McWilliam, John
Rooker, Jeff


Madden, Max
Rooney, Terry


Mahon, Alice
Sedgemore, Brian


Mandelson, Peter
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Spellar, John


Martlew, Eric
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Maxton, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Milburn, Alan
Turner, Dennis


Miller, Andrew
Wareing, Robert N


Morley, Elliot
Welsh, Andrew


Mudie, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Mullin, Chris
Wise, Audrey


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Worthington, Tony


O'Hara, Edward
Wray, Jimmy


Olner, William



O'Neill, Martin
Tellers for the Noes:


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


Pickthall, Colin
Mr. Bob Cryer.


Pike, Peter L.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 6th December, be approyed.—[Mr. Wood.]

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 109.

Division No. 38]
[11.36 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Burt, Alistair


Alexander, Richard
Butler, Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butterfill, John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amess, David
Carrington, Matthew


Arbuthnot, James
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cash, William


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Ashby, David
Clappison, James


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Coe, Sebastian


Baldry, Tony
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Congdon, David


Bates, Michael
Conway, Derek


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Beggs, Roy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bellingham, Henry
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bendall, Vivian
Couchman, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cran, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Booth, Hartley
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Boswell, Tim
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Day, Stephen


Bowden, Andrew
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bowis, John
Devlin, Tim


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brandreth, Gyles
Dover, Den


Brazier, Julian
Duncan, Alan


Bright, Graham
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Dunn, Bob


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Dykes, Hugh


Budgen, Nicholas
Eggar, Tim


Burns, Simon
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter






Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Madel, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Malone, Gerald


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Mans, Keith


Evennett, David
Marland, Paul


Faber, David
Marlow, Tony


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Fishburn, Dudley
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forman, Nigel
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Merchant, Piers


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Milligan, Stephen


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Mills, Iain


French, Douglas
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gale, Roger
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gallie, Phil
Moate, Sir Roger


Gardiner, Sir George
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Garnier, Edward
Moss, Malcolm


Gill, Christopher
Nelson, Anthony


Gillen, Cheryl
Neubert, Sir Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Nicholls, Patrick


Gorst, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Norris, Steve


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Grylls, Sir Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Hague, William
Page, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Paice, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Patnick, Irvine


Hampson, Dr Keith
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hanley, Jeremy
Pickles, Eric


Hannam, Sir John
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Harris, David
Rathbone, Tim


Haselhurst, Alan
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hawkins, Nick
Richards, Rod


Hayes, Jerry
Riddick, Graham


Heald, Oliver
Robathan, Andrew


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hendry, Charles
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hicks, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Horam, John
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Sackville, Tom


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hunter, Andrew
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jack, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jenkin, Bernard
Shersby, Michael


Jessel, Toby
Sims, Roger


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Soames, Nicholas


Key, Robert
Speed, Sir Keith


Kilfedder, Sir James
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Knapman, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spink, Dr Robert


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spring, Richard


Knox, Sir David
Sproat, Iain


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Steen, Anthony


Legg, Barry
Stephen, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Stern, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Stewart, Allan


Lidington, David
Streeter, Gary


Lightbown, David
Sweeney, Walter


Lord, Michael
Sykes, John


Luff, Peter
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, Rt hon John D. (Strgfd)


Maclean, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thomason, Roy





Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wells, Bowen


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Whitney, Ray


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Whittingdale, John


Thurnham, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wilkinson, John


Tracey, Richard
Willetts, David


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Trend, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Trotter, Neville
Wolfson, Mark


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wood, Timothy


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
yeo, Tim


Walden, George
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Ashton, Joe
Kilfoyle, Peter


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Kirkwood, Archy


Barnes, Harry
Lewis, Terry


Battle, John
Llwyd, Elfyn


Bayley, Hugh
Loyden, Eddie


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
McAllion, John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
McAvoy, Thomas


Benton, Joe
Macdonald, Calum


Bermingham, Gerald
McKelvey, William


Betts, Clive
McMaster, Gordon


Boyes, Roland
McWilliam, John


Bradley, Keith
Mahon, Alice


Burden, Richard
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Martlew, Eric


Chisholm, Malcolm
Maxton, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Meale, Alan


Clelland, David
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Coffey, Ann
Milburn, Alan


Cohen, Harry
Miller, Andrew


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morley, Elliot


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mudie, George


Davidson, Ian
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Olner, William


Denham, John
Pickthall, Colin


Dewar, Donald
Pike, Peter L.


Dixon, Don
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Primarolo, Dawn


Dowd, Jim
Radice, Giles


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Reid, Dr John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Rendel, David


Enright, Derek
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Etherington, Bill
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Rooker, Jeff


Galloway, George
Rooney, Terry


Garrett, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Gerrard, Neil
Short, Clare


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Spearing, Nigel


Golding, Mrs Llin
Spellar, John


Graham, Thomas
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Steinberg, Gerry


Gunnell, John
Strang, Dr. Gerry


Hanson, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hoey, Kate
Turner, Dennis


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Wallace, James


Hood, Jimmy
Wareing, Robert N


Hoon, Geoffrey
Welsh, Andrew


Hoyle, Doug
Wigley, Dafydd


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Wise, Audrey


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wray, Jimmy


Hutton, John



Illsley, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Johnston, Sir Russell
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Mr. Bob Cryer.


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 108.

Division No. 39]
[11.47 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Bob


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dykes, Hugh


Amess, David
Eggar, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Ashby, David
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Aspinwall, Jack
Evennett, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Faber, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fabricant, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bates, Michael
Fishburn, Dudley


Batiste, Spencer
Forman, Nigel


Beggs, Roy
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bendell, Vivian
French, Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gale, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gallie, Phil


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Booth, Hartley
Garnier, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowden, Andrew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gorst, John


Brandreth, Gyles
Grant, sir A. (Cambs SW)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butler, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, Sir John


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Harris, David


Cash, William
Haselhurst, Alan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Nick


Chapman, Sydney
Hayes, Jerry


Clappison, James
Heald, Oliver


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Hicks, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Congdon, David
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Conway, Derek
Horam, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Rt hon David (G'dford)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jack, Michael


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan, Alan
Key, Robert





Kilfedder, Sir James
Sackville, Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, Sir David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shersby, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sims, Roger


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Legg, Barry
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Soames, Nicholas


Lidington, David
Speed, Sir keith


Lightbown, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spink, Dr Robert


MacKay, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Maclean, David
Sproat Iain


McLoughlin, Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Steen, Anthony


Malone, Gerald
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Allan


Marlow, Tony
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sykes, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Milligan, Stephen
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mills, Iain
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thomason, Roy


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Moate, Sir Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Moss, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tracey, Richard


Nicholls, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trend, Michael


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Trotter, Neville


Norris, Steve
Twinn, Dr Ian


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walden, George


Ottaway, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Page, Richard
Waller, Gary


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patnick, Irvine
Waterson, Nigel


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wells, Bowen


Pickles, Eric
Whitney, Ray


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whittingdale, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Widdecombe, Ann


Rathbone, Tim
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wilkinson, John


Richards, Rod
Willetts, David


Riddick, Graham
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wolfson, Mark


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wood, Timothy


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)



Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. Michael Brown.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Betts, Clive


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Boyes, Roland


Ashton, Joe
Bradley, Keith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Burden, Richard


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Battle, John
Cann, Jamie


Bayley, Hugh
Chisholm, Malcolm


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Clelland, David


Benton, Joe
Coffey, Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Cohen, Harry






Cryer, Bob
McMaster, Gordon


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McWilliam, John


Davidson, Ian
Mahon, Alice


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Martlew, Eric


Dewar, Donald
Maxton, John


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Donohoe, Brian H.
Michael, Alun


Dowd, Jim
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Milburn, Alan


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Miller, Andrew


Etherington, Bill
Morley, Elliot


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Fatchett, Derek
Olner, William


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Galloway, George
Pickthall, Colin


Gerrard, Neil
Pike, Peter L.


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Primarolo, Dawn


Graham, Thomas
Radice, Giles


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Reid, Dr John


Gunnell, John
Rendel, David


Hanson, David
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hoey, Kate
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Rooker, Jeff


Hood, Jimmy
Rooney, Terry


Hoon, Geoffrey
Sedgemore, Brian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Short, Clare


Hoyle, Doug
Skinner, Dennis


Hutton, John
Spearing, Nigle


Illsley, Eric
Spellar, John


Johnston, Sir Russell
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Steinberg, Gerry


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Taylor, Mrs Ann {Dewsbury}


Kilfoyle, Peter
Turner, Dennis


Kirkwood, Archy
Wareing, Robert N


Lewis, Terry
Welsh, Andrew


Liwyd, Elfyn
Wigley, Dafydd


Loyden, Eddie
Wise, Audrey


McAllion, John
Worthington, Tony


McAvoy, Thomas
Wray, Jimmy


Macdonald, Calum



McGrady, Eddie
Tellers for the Noes:


McKelvey, William
Mr. George Mudie and


Mackinlay, Andrew
Mr. Kevin Hughes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Consolidated Fund Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 {Consolidated Fund Bills}:

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 91.

Division No.40]
[11.58 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Duncan, Alan


Alexander, Richard
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dunn, Bob


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Arbuthnot, James
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, David {Welwyn Hatfield}


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evans, Jonathan {Brecon}


Ashby, David
Evans, Nigel {Ribble Valley}


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, Roger{Monmouth}


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evennett, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Faber, David


Baldry, Tony
Fabricant, Michael


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bates, Michael
Field, Barry {Isle of Wight}


Batiste, Spencer
Fishburn, Dudley


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Forman, Nigel


Bellingham, Henry
Forsyth, Michael {Stirling}


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Dr Liam {Woodspring}


Beresford, Sir Paul
French, Douglas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gallie, Phil


Booth, Hartley
Gardiner, Sir George


Boswell, Tim
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, Andrew
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowis, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorst, John


Brazier, Julian
Grant, Sir A. {Cambs SW}


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry {Ealing N}


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, John {Ryedale}


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Griffiths, Peter {Portsmouth, N}


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie {Epsom}


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil {Tatton}


Butler, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hannam, Sir John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Cash, William
Hawkins, Nick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, Jerry


Chapman, Sydney
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hendry, Charles


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hicks, Robert


Coe, Sebastian
Hill, James {Southampton Test}


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas{G'tham}


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan {Strat'rd-on-A}


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon David {G'dford}


Cran, James
Hughes Robert G.{Harrow W}


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunt, Sir John {Ravensbourne}


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jessel, Toby


Devlin, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym {Cardiff N






Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sackville, Tom


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, David {Dover}


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Sir Giles {Pudsey}


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Colin {Hereford}


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shepherd, Richard {Aldridge}


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Michael


Kirkwood, Archy
Sims, Roger


Knapman, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Smith, Sir Dudley {Warwick}


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Smith, Tim {Beaconsfield}


Knox, Sir David
Soames, Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Sir James {W Dorset}


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Michael {S Worcs}


Leigh, Edward
Spink, Dr Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spring, Richard


Lidington, David
Sproat, Iain


Lightbown, David
Squire, Robin {Hornchurch}


Lord, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Luff, Peter
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew
Stephen, Michael


Maclean, David
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sweeney, Walter


Malone, Gerald
Sykes, John


Mans, Keith
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Ian {Esher}


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, John M. {Solihull}


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thomason, Roy


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Sir Donald {C'er V}


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thompson, Patrick {Norwich N}


Merchant, Piers
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Milligan, Stephen
Thurnham, Peter


Mills, Iain
Townend, John {Bridlington}


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townsend, Cyril D. {Bexl'yh'th}


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Tracey, Richard


Moate, Sir Roger
Tredinnick, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trend, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Nelson, Anthony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neubert, Sir Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walden, George


Nicholls, Patrick
Walker, Bill {N Tayside}


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wallace, James


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles {Bexhill}


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waterson, Nigel


Ottaway, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Page, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Paice, James
Whittingdale, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Widdecombe, Ann


Pickles, Eric
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilkinson, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Willetts, David


Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann {Congleton}


Rendel, David
Winterton, Nicholas {Macc'f'ld}


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Richards, Rod
Wood, Timothy


Riddick, Graham
Yeo, Tim


Robathan, Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)



Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Mr. Derek Conway.


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela





NOES


Ainsworth, Robert {Cov'try NE}
Betts, Clive


Banks, Tony {Newham NW}
Boateng, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Boyes, Roland


Battle, John
Bradley, Keith


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Caborn, Richard


Beckett, Joe
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Eric {Midlothian}





Clelland, David
McMaster, Gordon


Coffey, Ann
McWilliam, John


Cohen, Harry
Mahon, Alice


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, Jim {Leicester, S}


Davidson, Ian
Martlew, Eric


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Maxton, John


Dewar, Donald
Meale, Alan


Dixon, Don
Michael, Alun


Dowd, Jim
Michie, Bill {Sheffield Heeley}


Enright, Derek
Milburn, Alan


Etherington, Bill
Miller, Andrew


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morley, Elliot


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Mudie, George


Fatchett, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Flynn, Paul
O'Brien, Michael {N W'kshire}


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Gerrard, Neil
Pickthall, Colin


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Pike, Peter L.


Golding, Mrs Llin
Powell, Ray {Ogmore}


Graham, Thomas
Primarolo, Dawn


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Radice, Giles


Gunnell, John
Reid, Dr John


Hall, Mike
Robinson, Peter {Belfast E}


Hanson, David
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Hoey, Kate
Rooker, Jeff


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Rooney, Terry


Hoon, Geoffrey
Sedgemore, Brian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Short, Clare


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Spellar, John


Hutton, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Illsley, Eric
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Ingram, Adam
Turner, Dennis


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Wareing, Robert N


Kilfoyle, Peter
Welsh, Andrew


Lewis, Terry
Wise, Audrey


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Worthington, Tony


Loyden, Eddie



McAvoy, Thomas
Tellers for the Noes:


Macdonald, Calum
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


McGrady, Eddie
Mr. Bob Cryer.


Mackinlay, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 97.

Division No. 42
[6.07 am


AYES


Nil


Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Michael Fabricant and



Mr John Marshall.






NOES


Arbuthnot, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Kirkhope, Timothy
Mr. David Shaw and



Mr. Bill Walker.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Orders of the Day — Marchioness Disaster

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I have no pleasure in raising the subject of the Marchioness disaster. We should not be here; it should not have happened; and it should have been cleared up by a public inquiry.
In my Adjournment debate on 10 July last year, we were given an answer by one of the Ministers who are now present. I suspect that either he or a colleague will reply to the debate. I understand why two are present; I think that other debates may follow. I asked at least 10 questions which were not answered in that debate.
One of the singular issues was that had the Marchioness disaster happened in June or July with the House in session, there would have been a statement within a day or two. There would have been an enormous furore, and I think that there would have been a public inquiry. Anything less would not have been, and I do not believe has ever been, acceptable.
Fifty people died unexpectedly and tragically in the centre of London. It is the only disaster we have had on the Thames in over a century, since the Princess Alice went down off Beckton. That illustrates the relative safety of the Thames and makes it all the more important that something should have been done.
Three former or existing residents of my constituency, including Stephen Perks, lost their life. One of the former residents was the skipper of the Marchioness, Mr. Faldo. However, my constituency interest is not the prime motivation or interest that I have in the issue. My interest started because this is the 50th year in which I have been fairly regularly navigating the tidal Thames. It is roughly 45 years ago, about the summer of 1945, that I came down the river in a dinghy and moored somewhere near Westminster pier on a buoy when some men in a steamboat said, "Come along, sonny. Get your tea out and moor alongside us." That was the Marchioness.
I have no commercial interest in the river, but I am a vice-president of the River Thames Society and a member of the Inland Waterways Association, Transport on Water, the Thames Traditional Boat Society and the Thames Wherry Trust. That is not the Wherry of the Norfolk sort, but the traditional type which for 200 or 300 years were on the river in their thousands.
I make mistakes on the river, as we all do on the road. One looks back afterwards, grateful that others were not making a mistake at the same time. So I have considerable sympathy for both men—one drowned and one alive—who were involved in the incident as skippers. Old Father Thames may seem nice in many ways, and he is; but he is a nasty old man between Blackfriars and the Tower.
Usually I tend to be rather detailed and legalistic. I hope that the House will forgive me if I become more colloquial in recounting the complex and horrific story of the events that took place after the disaster. I do not want to give way, except to Front-Bench spokesmen if they really wish to intervene.
This has been a story of inaction. After King's Cross and the incident at Clapham, there were, quite rightly, big inquiries. An inquiry asks questions and reveals and the Government and all of us should assist that process. Unfortunately, in this instance, as I will demonstrate, the reverse has been the case. Survivors and relatives have been thwarted not only in their attempts to get a decent


public inquiry, but even in the matters that they have raised. I do not believe that they have been dealt with in the way that the House would wish.
After the refusal by the then Secretary of State for Transport to grant a public inquiry—the recess helped that—a former Director of Public Prosecutions brought a case. People thought that there would be action at last. It was a case about not keeping a proper lookout. In the courts, that meant that matters of liability, blame and factors other than failing to keep a lookout were not germane to the proceedings. I understand that the maximum fine for that offence was £2,000 or two years imprisonment. It meant that all other comments were sub judice. That went on for a long time. Unfortunately, the jury did not agree on the first case, and it had to be retried.
The Marchioness action group, which I met, ironically, at a conference on river safety some two years after the event, opposed that prosecution. Why was it brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and why did not the Attorney General use his powers, under what lawyers call "nolle prosequi", to stop that prosecution taking place? Surely it was not in the public's interest.
Time went on and the matter died down to an extent. It progressed only at an inquest by the Westminster coroner. I expressed concern about that at the previous debate on the matter, but I have had no satisfaction. Some of the hands of those who were drowned were removed by order of the coroner, who prevented, by some form of order, some of the next of kin from even identifying their loved ones and family.
When the case on keeping a look-out arose, the matter went sub judice and, when it was concluded some time later, despite requests from more than 30 families, the inquest was adjourned and has not been resumed.
So cutting off the inquiry was the second block. I understand why that may have been justified. In answer to a written question, the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office told me:
Under section 16(3) of the Act, the coroner may resume the adjourned inquest after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings if, in his opinion, there is sufficient cause to do so." —[Official Report, 13 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 439.]
That is usually when some other circumstances are connected with the death, but the coroner has an option to reconvene the case. In this case, he used the right not to do so, despite the clear need to take the matter further through the inquest.
Next, a private prosecution was brought by a relative of one of the deceased. Mr. Glogg's wife was drowned, and he brought a private prosecution against the owners of the Bowbelle, Ready Mixed Concrete, which is a large firm with strong links with this House, with both personnel and well-known financial connections.
The corporate case against RMC was against individual members of its management, but things went wrong. It would take too long for me to go into the complication, but the difficulty arose because the DPP intervened again. He has the power to take over a private prosecution if he thinks that it is wise to do so but, having taken it over, he can drop it.
There was an argument between him and the Marchioness action group about what was to happen. I understand that he said that he wanted to see all the group's evidence before taking a view on the matter. Members of the group thought it so outrageous that the DPP wanted to see the evidence before it was tried in court that they made

the matter public and he then dropped it. I may not have got that absolutely right, but my description shows the difficulties that those people faced at least a year after the disaster.
The prosecution went ahead, but further difficulties arose when the firm involved understanably applied for a judicial review and tried to stop the case going ahead. Although it went ahead, the magistrate—it was held in the Bow street court—said that, if it was a matter of corporate liability, the condition of the craft and how it was managed would not necessarily count. He questioned whether it could be proved that the Marchioness had turned to port, as the inquiry had showed.
In the same way, one might have an accident with a motor car that comes across one's front. He said that it was impossible to tell whether that had happened. If it had, it would have made no difference how well the ship was managed or how responsible the company was. That is my understanding of that matter.
That took us, after two years, to the report of the marine accident investigation branch. Although that report was completed and some of the material that it contained, including the recommendations, were published, the report itself—quite properly—was not due to be published.
If the Marchioness action group—I am taking this a little out of sequence—wanted to pursue the corporate matter, as it did, it had a problem with the report, because it was about to be published. The action group went to the Attorney-General and said, "If the report is published at this time, the case that we are about to pursue based on the course of the Marchioness will be prejudiced. Please ask the Government to hold back the MAIB report, so that —as in all the other cases—the matter will be deemed sub judice, but this time on our terms, until that court case is finished." The Government did not agree.
The preface to the MAIB report is signed by Captain Marriott, who states:
I submit my Report following the Inspector's inquiry into the collision between the passenger launch Marchioness and the aggregate dredger Bowebelle".
Although Captain Marriott was the senior man in the MAIB, it was not his inquiry. He refers to "the Inspector's inquiry". Who conducted the inquiry? That is not stated in the report. The inquiry was conducted by someone who may be known but who was not named, and was sent by his superior officer to the Secretary of State for Transport. We do not know who formally conducted the inquiry, although we might have some guesses about it.
How did that arise? Unlike a proper inquiry, if I may put it that way, a maritime inquiry of that nature comes under the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 and Statutory Instrument 1172, the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations 1989, which were published only a month or two before the Marchioness disaster, and which are highly relevant. Regulation 8(2), regarding the conduct of investigations, states:
An investigation may extend to cover all events and circumstances preceding the accident which in the opinion of the inspector may have been relevant to its cause or outcome, and also to cover the consequences of the accident and the inspector's powers shall apply accordingly.
Regulation 8(4) states:
Upon completion of an investigation the inspector shall submit to the Chief Inspector his findings as to the facts of the accident and, where the facts cannot be certainly established, his opinion as to the most probable facts. He shall clearly distinguish


between established facts and conjecture. He shall also submit his analysis and his conclusions together with such observations and recommendations as he thinks fit to make.
The personality of the inspector who submitted his report to the Chief Inspector, Captain Marriott, is therefore most important. We are getting further and further away from what one would expect from a public inquiry in the form that one would expect, at which members of the public can volunteer information, and so on.
The MAIB report was well publicised at the time of its publication. Full summaries were sent to the press in August 1991, and it is true that it said some hard things about the way that Department of Transport officials and possibly Ministers handled safety on the Thames for a number of years. I will not quote those comments because they appear in the summaries and even more so in the Hayes report, to which I shall refer later.
It is interesting and important to note that not all the people who wanted to provide evidence did so. As I understand it, that happened without much knowledge of the victims who were on the boat or their families.
I am told that many of those who survived the traumatic incident gave statements to the police, and that was all they heard about it. One person of whom I know had to make great efforts to give evidence to the MAIB inquiry. Other people did not know that they had the opportunity to do so. Advertisements were placed in newspapers. Does that mean that the survivors' addresses were unknown? It was an extraordinary way to go about things.
I did not know the position at the time. I knew that the Bowbelle had been involved in several accidents before that disaster—neither the Bowbelle nor its sister ship was unknown on the river. As soon as the report was published, I looked to see what it could tell me about the accidents that I had seen in Lloyd's List. Out of seven or eight accidents of which I knew, only one was included in the report. I immediately wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport, who was then the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). In my letter I stated that the Bowbelle had been involved in six accidents that were not mentioned in the report, and that there must be something wrong.
I found that many factors were wrong. I read the report and found that it raised as many questions as it answered. I wanted to know so many facts that were not included in the report. There were so many omissions and massive gaps that I could not regard it as a thorough or complete report. It was necessary to know the river to be able to identify them. I concentrated on the six accidents that were not reported. I corresponded with the hon. Member for Derbshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who was then a junior Transport Minister and we had a sort of tennis match in Hansard on complex issues.
On 12 December 1991, the Minister eventually told me that he had received no representations about omissions of relevant facts from the investigation. I said that I had sent him a letter asked questions only to be told that they were not relevant. The Minister's reply continued:
The letter of 19 August from the hon. Member was received on 20 August: I replied on 19 September. That letter from the hon. Member was not considered to be a representation about relevant facts in the context of the Marchioness report. The marine accident investigation branch inspectors were aware of the number of incidents involving vessels, including Bowbelle, which had occurred prior to the tragic accident that they were

investigating. Section 15 of the report discussed the reaction of the owners, PLA and the Department at some length. To have gone into detail on each incident would have greatly lengthened that section without adding to its value; the reason for singling out the incidents described in annex 11 of the report is that they had particular similarities to the Marchioness case."—[Official Report, 12 December 1991; Vol. 200, c. 511.]
One of the cases happened in Sydney harbour in 1927. The six that I had singled out were not mentioned. The answer also mentioned "detail on each incident"—I was not asking for detail; I just wanted the matter listed.
Eventually, on 21 January 1992, the subject was placed on the record when I asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he would draw the accidents to the attention of the Hayes inquiry established by him. The gaps in the report included the fact that it contained no account of the career or experience of both masters. There was no real investigation of the intensity of illumination—at least of the Bowbelle's lights. The inspector said that, if Captain Faldo had turned and the boat was in the line of vision, it was possible that he did not see it.
The report contained no description of the tidal sets—streams that run sideways across the river—which are important; or the depth of the water at that time. Speed tests were not carried out on the Bowbelle. There was no transcript of the Thames navigation service radio, which transmitted messages from various boats at that time. The transcript that is now in the Library has the phrase "unknown vessel" against one of the key transmissions.
Later—I emphasise that—the report states that both boats went through the centre arches of Southwark bridge. That is what the report says, and everybody agrees with it. There was no discussion about convergence speeds or line of sight at that point.
Most important of all, because rumour was rampant on the river at that time, there was no reference to when police took statements from those who were mainly concerned. I do not repeat rumour, but I can ask questions. There was a rumour, not mentioned in the report or denied, that a representative of Ready Mixed Concrete was aboard Bowbelle before the police. That may not be true; I do not know. All I am saying is that that was believed by some people. I ask the question: was that true or not true? Why was not it dealt with in the report as a matter of routine description?
We move to the next phase, when the Marchioness action group met the Secretary of State and asked for an inquiry. He had to do something about that, did he not? He then produced the Hayes report into river safety. That was trumpeted around, and resulted in headlines in the press. I shall quote the Department of Transport press release dated 19 December 1991. It was headed:
Marchioness: river safety inquiry announced",
and said:
An independent investigation is to take place of the Department of Transport's past and present handling of river safety, Malcolm Rifkind, Secretary of State for Transport announced today.
I do not know who wrote the headline. We have problems of our own in the subbing of headlines.
In fact, the Hayes inquiry was not into the Marchioness disaster. Its terms of reference stated:
In the light of the Marchioness/Bowbelle disaster to examine the handling since 1980 by the Department of Transport of its responsibility for the safety of vessels on rivers and inland waters and to report on the effectiveness of the present approach. The enquiry should take account of developments in the field of marine safety at the international level.


In correspondence, Mr. Hayes made it quite clear that, while he could consider that disaster and take some lessons from it, he was not entitled either to investigate the disaster itself or still less to make an evaluation of the MAIB report. Those terms of reference were set out in Cm 1991, which is the Hayes report published by the Government.
A remarkable statement was made in paragraph 1.7 of the report, when Mr. Hayes said:
When the disaster occurred I understand that the decision not to order a public inquiry was taken at No. 10 Downing Street on advice from the Department.
I do not suppose that the Minister can tell us why that was the advice. I should very much like to know. The only reason that I have heard was that, as in the case of an air disaster, the technical people could deal with it rather better than a public inquiry.
One of the principal recommendations of the Hayes report was:
There should be an early review of the rescue arrangements and equipment on the Thames which should take account of the Marchioness/Bowbelle disaster.
As the Hayes committee would not have been set up but for that disaster, we automatically expected that that would be accepted by the Department, because it was surely one of the principal recommendations.
I have lost count of the blockages that occurred in this sad story, but I shall cite another involving the present Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor). In his reply to the Hayes report, he said:
The Government have given careful consideration to the recommendation but have concluded that a further review of this kind would not be justified. Action is, however, being taken to ensure that the lessons…have been fully assimilated."—[Official Report, 7 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 101.]
One of the prime reasons for setting up the Hayes committee, even if, contrary to public expectation, it did not consider the Marchioness disaster, as that misleading headline suggested it might, was not accepted. But it gets worse, if one can imagine that.
On 19 July, a year later, the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) asked the Secretary of State for Transport:
which recommendations in the marine accident investigation branch report into the collision between the Marchioness and the Bowbelle have now been implemented and what action has been taken on the recommendations in the report of the inquiry into river safety, the Hayes report.
I am sorry to say that the Minister for Transport in London, who is present in the Chamber, answered thus:
The MAIB report into the loss of the Marchioness contained 27 recommendations. All have now been implemented. The Hayes report contained 22 recommendations, and action is in hand on all."—[Official Report, 19 July 1993; Vol. 229, c. 78.]
That is the nearest thing that I have seen to a falsehood in Hansard in my career. I hoped that I have phrased that correctly.
That leads, I think, to block six. I have lost count. We have stopped at almost every point. Requests for further action and a public inquiry were rejected. It was said, "Ah, we have had two court cases and two reports and all the facts are known. What more is needed? You are up a gum tree."
That was more or less the position until the debate that I initiated a year ago, when the 10 questions that I posed were not answered and which, unfortunately, did not receive much media attention—at least, until last Wednesday when the "Despatches" programme on

Channel 4 went into the subject in a big way. I shall not deal with that in detail, because videos are as readily available as newspapers these days.
The programme did not spend much time on the disaster, except at the end, when it was very important, but it gave the background to the ships—alas, apparently badly managed—of Ready Mixed Concrete, a large organisation the characteristics of which I mentioned en passant a short while ago.
Several crew members of the vessels gave various accounts of what had happened. It may be that some will be questioned by the company; no doubt they will. The programme dealt with many things, some of which hon. Members may wish to refer to, which cast light on the management of all the vessels in the concern involved. It also made it clear that the evidence and experiences of various witnesses and survivors of the incident had not been taken into account in the MAIB report.
The programme went on to show, as the MAIB report says, that the facts suggested that, under all the circumstances, it was probable that the Marchioness sank somewhere between Southwark bridge and Canon street railway bridge, perhaps nearer to the latter, and was probably turning to port when it was run down. That is broadly what the MAIB reports says. Most of the evidence—not all of it—in the courts and taken by the MAIB suggested that that was so.
The programme suggested that at least there was some evidence the other way. But that evidence was not in the MAIB report, probably because, as I have said, it was not easy to give evidence to the inquiry. How could people know about it when details were not widely circulated, at least according to my information?
Yet time after time, Minister after Minister talked airily, as all Ministers do, about there having been a full and thorough inquiry, with all the facts having been made known. That was not so. They were brought out in the programme on Wednesday.
Therefore, I asked a question which was answered the day after the programme. I asked the Secretary of State for Transport
if he will now reconsider the decisions made not to establish a public inquiry into the Marchioness disaster of comparable scope to those already conducted into the disasters at King's Cross and Clapham.
The reply was:
When the then Secretary of State considered the need for a public inquiry he concluded that the holding of a formal investigation was unnecessary given that a full, thorough and comprehensive inquiry had been carried out by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch—MAIB. Subsequently, the view has remained that a formal investigation would be unlikely to add to the inspector's findings,"—
I suggest that it would be likely to do so—
or to the 27 safety recommendations made in the MAIB report. The position was not changed by anything said in the Hayes report, which made no suggestion that a further inquiry into the accident was needed.
Of course, the report made a recommendation which was not taken up that an inquiry should be held into safety in general. The answer continues:
I therefore remain of the view that the case for a formal inquiry has not been made."—[Official Report, 9 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 341.]
That was the day after the broadcast.
Some people were stirred by the broadcast, including some survivors. I have received two letters since the broadcast which I should like to quote. One was from a lady called Gillian Moseley, who wrote:


I am a survivor of the disaster and was the first person to climb out of the Boat after the Bowbelle ran over us and once the Marchioness 'bobbed back up'. I was in shock at the time and my senses were heightened and I described to many people the open water I came up in. We were definitely on the west of Southwark bridge and I was horrified to learn from the programme that it was assumed otherwise, and that this assumption was the basis of false conclusions which closed the case.
It is true that the river may have been running at 2 or 3 knots and people may have been swept up river, but what about the letter from Mr. Simon Hook? Mr. Hook was a survivor. He was in a WC cubicle at the time of the collision. He said:
there was a window on my left which was square with curved edges. The bottom part of the window was blacked out. The top part of the window slid open to let the air in and it was possible to see out. The Marchioness was on a straight course and had not changed course in any way when there was an initial lurch to the side as if something had hit us. At the time my hand was in the open window and I used this to steady myself. As the Marchioness lurched over on one side I saw through the open window, the underside of a bridge overhead the boat. I now believe this was Southwark Bridge. I could see the bridge because as we tipped up there was some light coming from the Marchioness and then immediately afterwards the lights went out.
Before seeing the television programme I did not know that the official report and the prosecution had been based on the disaster occurring between Cannon Street and Southwark Bridge. I know from my own observation that this is not the case and that the Marchioness was under Southwark Bridge and can confirm what was said on the television programme by the eye witnesses on the Hurlingham.
They were the people who did not speak—the Sherlock Holmes dogs who were not allowed to bark. The Hurlingham rescued many survivors from the terrible tragedy. The skipper and many passengers were aboard that boat, some of whom gave evidence on the television programme which was contrary to the conclusions of the official inquiry.
The House cannot judge what evidence was right. We are not an inquiry which can do that. All I am saying is that there is evidence contrary to that included in the official inquiry, and that witnesses were not heard and apparently were not sought.
I asked a question, answered today by the Minister for Transport in London—the same person who answered previous questions, I make it plain, for the Secretary of State and previous Secretaries of State. I asked the Secretary of State:
what relevant facts he now has in his possession, or have been drawn to his attention, which in his opinion are additional to those set out in the report of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch concerning the "Marchioness" disaster.
The answer was:
None.
The witnesses may have got it wrong under cross-questioning, but can it really be said that the facts drawn to the Minister's attention are irrelevant? I do not think so.
So my submission is that the official report on which so much has been based, including the evidence about the turn to port between the bridges rather than possibly being struck under the middle of Southwark bridge, is that the report is inept, inadequate, incomplete, incompetent, inefficient, probably incorrect and was taken in private in Orpington—by a unnamed inspector. It might have been Mr. Marriott or Captain DeCoverley—I do not know.
A decent inquiry would have been held not only in public but in Greenwich, Southwark or Westminster. There is an inquest court and a high court in Westminster, and

this is the high court—Parliament, where we must question not only Ministers' handling of this matter but the Department's handling of marine matters and the handling by the Government, successive Secretaries of State, Attorneys-General and the past DPP.
I put that point to the Leader of the House on Thursday, who, again reading his brief, said:
I am advised that no new evidence has been produced to warrant a further inquiry and that the evidence cited in the television programme covered no ground that was not examined during the MAIB investigation."—[Official Report, 9 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 488.]
Anyone who has seen that video and read the report could not go along with that. I do not think that the Lord President does so, but he said that the inquiry had covered the ground, and I hope that I have covered quite a lot of the water.
The MAIB is not an awfully well regarded organisation. It has been heavily criticised in relation to other matters, and the recent record on maritime safety has not been good. The Derbyshire incident has not been dealt with and questions remain unanswered about the Pescado and the Ocean Hound.
It is no good the Government saying, "Let us do it like aircraft inquiries," at which the interests of passengers and the financial interests of air companies are in harmony. At inquiries into incidents involving cargo vessels, the interests of the safety of the crew and the financial interests of owners are in conflict.
I shall conclude by asking some questions. Why did the DPP initiate the case? Why did he then try to stop, in effect, a private prosecution? Why did not the coroner complete his investigation? Why were hands cut off? Why did the coroner deny identification? Why did not the Attorney-General apply nolle prosequi, and why did not he postpone the publication of the MAIB report so that the case could have got on? Why did not the Secretary of State have a Clapham or King's Cross style inquiry? Why did not he implement the recommendation of the Hayes report? Why are Ministers trying to say that they did, when they did not?
Every hon. Member whose constituent was drowned or who represents a grieving family or friend has a right to know why the Government do not want a public inquiry—and London wants to know, too.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I begin by paying tribute to the relentless way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has pursued the scandalous sinking of the Marchioness and the more scandalous way in which British officialdom has attempted to deal with it.
I should like to put a question to the Minister: have Ministers seen the "Despatches" film right through? I will give way if the Minister can tell us. Apparently he has not. I do not know whether silence betokens consent.
There is a basic position: when a substantial number of our fellow citizens suffer sudden death, any Government, even a minimalist Government of the present persuasion, must recognise that they have a basic obligation to investigate those deaths as thoroughly as is humanly possible and to produce reports that are thorough and satisfactory and which satisfy all rational people, especially those who are involved either as survivors or as relatives of the people killed.


In the case of the Marchioness disaster, in which 51 people died, British officialdom has failed on all counts. What has happened has brought our judicial and administrative systems into disrepute.
Let us begin by considering the investigation by the marine accident investigation branch. It was conducted behind closed doors and it has never been disclosed who gave evidence to it. We know, however, that some of the evidence that it considered was given to the police for other purposes. Questions relevant to the MAIB were not asked and the investigation received evidence that was irrelevant to its inquiries. No one has had the opportunity to challenge any of the evidence presented. It is clear even to a layman reading some of the technical evidence that the investigation was shoddily conducted. For example, the "spot the Bowbelle" tests bore no resemblance to the circumstances in which the sinking occurred.
The report did not deal with all the issues and it mixed up evidence and conclusions. It was a second-rate investigation and a second-rate report. The Government must bear some responsibility for that because they constantly tell their officials and the public that they do not believe in strict regulation and that any regulation of business is a burden on business and should be avoided at all costs.
The shoddy, second-rate report produced by the Department of Transport is wrong in even the simple matters. It states that it was not known what the skipper of the Marchioness was doing the afternoon before the accident. The Department had all the facilities of the state at its disposal, but it could not find out that he was visiting a friend's wife who had had a baby. Other people found that out, but British officialdom could not be bothered; apparently, it did not matter.
The report makes it clear that, because the Department had decided in advance that the movements of the Marchioness were the basic cause of the incident, more time was spent examining the visibility from the wheelhouse of the Marchioness than the visibility from the wheelhouse of the Bowbelle. It is clear that, because the Bowbelle was not properly ballasted, the bows were high out of the water. The nearest water in front of the Bowbelle that the people in the wheelhouse could see was 1,000 ft away, far beyond where the boat it ran into was located. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said, the shoddy report managed to mention only one of the seven incidents on the river in which the Bowbelle had smashed into someone, something or some bridge.
Let us now consider the inquest on which Ministers rely when they say that they do not want a public inquiry. The inquest opened in April 1990 and lasted four days. In respect of all but seven of the people who died, what might be called part I of an inquest was completed. It established the identity of the victims and the immediate cause of death—drowning. The relatives of the seven people refused to allow part I of the inquest into the deaths of their loved ones unless an undertaking was given by the coroner to complete part II of his investigation. All were issued with interim death certificates, and some relatives have still not received final death certificates. The coroner has not returned to complete part I of the inquiry on the seven whose deaths were not dealt with in April 1990 and he has not returned to part II of any of the investigations. He said that he was not doing so because other investigations and judicial inquiries were doing the job.
The fact is that the deaths were not properly investigated or decided on by either of the two unsuccessful public prosecutions or by the private prosecution. The law states that, if a repetition of what had happened could lead to a further loss of life, the coroner is usually obliged to resume his inquest and complete it. That has not been done.
The master of the Bowbelle was prosecuted on the limited charge of not keeping a proper lookout and it was made clear that the offence was committed when he had left Nine Elms. Prosecuting counsel made it quite clear that that offence was irrelevant to the sinking of the Marchioness and the loss of 51 lives. The skipper never gave evidence. The jury did not agree. There was a retrial; the jury could not agree again. But in the words of prosecuting counsel, that prosecution had nothing at all to do with the sinking of the Marchioness, so that does not excuse the Government's unwillingness to hold a public inquiry or the scandalous unwillingness of the coroner to conduct his business properly.
Then there was the private prosecution, which at the outset was obstructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who harassed the lawyers representing people who had been killed. Following public uproar, the DPP had to withdraw from that scandalous approach.
Then we had the committal stage hearing. The judge stopped that, saying that, on the strength of what he understood at the time, the Marchioness might well have been at fault so the matter could not be put to the jury.
The next excuse for not holding a public inquiry and not completing the inquest is the Hayes report. That was not an inquiry into the Marchioness disaster. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South pointed out, its terms of reference did not ask or even empower it to investigate the Marchioness-Bowbelle disaster; it was charged with examining the handling by the Department of Transport of its responsibility for the safety of vessels on rivers generally. That was totally inadequate.
All those lawyers had to be paid for. At the end of all that expenditure, one basic thing is clear beyond doubt: the authorities still do not know for certain where the two boats crashed. It follows as surely as night follows day that, if we do not know where they crashed, we cannot begin even to consider how or why they crashed.
The survivors and the relatives believe that a substantial number of questions have not been answered. Worse still, they believe that some of the questions have been wrongly answered by those set in authority over us. They want the inquest reconvened and completed and they want a full public inquiry. The reason why they want a full public inquiry—and the House should support them—is that they feel that there should be an inquiry that covers all aspects of the accident. They think that each and every piece of evidence that is available should be challenged—and it would be challenged for the very first time.
Such an inquiry would provide an opportunity for evidence to be heard from the new witnesses revealed in the television programme and in the letters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South referred and an opportunity to challenge the shabby technical evidence produced by the Department of Transport.
Further questions remain to be answered including the fundamental question: where did the accident happen? British officialdom says that it happened east of Southwark bridge. As far as we know, the only evidence that it has for that—we have not been told about anyone else with any


evidence—is that provided by the lookouts who are alleged to have been on the bows of the Bowbelle. There are those who believe that the two dodgy witnesses on whom the Government rely were not there in the first place.
All the other witnesses who have made their views public say that the incident occurred west of Southwark bridge, or on the western side of the edge of the bridge as the boats went under it. That evidence is from people on the Hurlingham, the other pleasure craft that was around at the time, and from those who survived the Marchioness sinking themselves. If the sinking took place where they say it happened, the charge that the accident resulted from a change of course by the Marchioness is simply not believable—and if that did not happen officialdom's version of events simply collapses. Those who are concerned about the Government's inactivity and failure believe that the explanation in plain and simple: The Bowbelle ran down the Marchioness. It hit and ran; then it stopped, and then it went on again.
It did not render any assistance to the rescuers. Why not? There are doubts that the lookouts were in place. We know that the visibility was such that people in the Bowbelle's wheelhouse could not see a damned thing in front of them in the water. We also know that the man steering the Bowbelle—the poor man is now dead—had defective hearing, sight and speech. Such defects are not generally expected in someone in charge of such a boat.
The Bowbelle and her sister ships had been involved in more than 50 incidents of ramming, banging and bumping into other boats and bits of piers and bridges. The survivors and the relatives of the dead want to know why the Director of Public Prosecutions did not prosecute the skipper of the Bowbelle for more serious offences, and why he took no action against the company. We now know that that company knew all about the inadequacies of the communications, lookout and engine control systems.
Why did the DPP decide to try to obstruct the private prosecution? Why was the inquest not resumed after all three prosecutions had failed? Why were the police so slow in getting to the Bowbelle? A member of the company management got from Southampton to the Bowbelle before the police managed to get on to the boat. Who, other than the lookouts on the Bowbelle, gave evidence in secret about where the crash occurred? People want an opportunity to challenge that evidence.
People also want to know who decided to sever the hands of some of the victims in the water, and they also want to know why that was done. They want to know whether the hands of 26 victims were severed, as stated by the coroner, or whether it was the hands of six or seven victims, or no more than nine, as stated by different parts of the Metropolitan police.
Why has there been no public inquiry? People know from the Hayes report that the original call for a public inquiry was blocked by 10 Downing street. Why? Fifty-one people were killed in the Marchioness disaster. At King's Cross 31 people died and a public inquiry was held. At Clapham 31 people died, and again there was a public inquiry. What was different about the Marchioness?
We know what those disasters had in common. The people responsible for investigating the Marchioness disaster were from the Department of Transport; they were also responsible for regulating the river and had made a

lousy job of it, so they were partly at fault for what happened, which means that they were also attempting to investigate themselves because they were responsible for the generally unsafe culture on the Thames at that time.
It was the same with the investigation into the Piper Alpha disaster and with the railway inspectorate's investigation into the disasters at King's Cross and Clapham. The difference is that this is the only major disaster in which the people responsible for it, the boat's owners, contribute substantial amounts to the Tory party. They contributed nearly a third of a million pounds during the 1980s. They have close connections with the Tory party and have ex-Tory Members on the board. At the time of the disaster, one was a consultant to them.

Mr. Bowen Wells: That is sad.

Mr. Dobson: It is sad, but there are many things a hell of a lot sadder than exposing where the Tories get their money: 51 uninvestigated deaths are not just sad—they are a scandal and a disgrace on the Government.
The other reason why the Government do not want an inquiry is that they and their powerful friends are scared witless at the prospect of corporate manslaughter being accepted as the law of this land. That is why they do not want a full and thorough investigation. All the investigations into major disasters of recent times have been inadequate in one way or another. We need a review of the whole process. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I appeal to the Whips not to have conversations during a speech.

Mr. Dobson: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There must be no comments from a sedentary position.

Mr. Dobson: God bless you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My final point is that the duty of the Government, and of the House, is not to protect corporate wealth and people who pay themselves well and say that they take great risks and bear great responsibilities but who do not want to take the blame when things go wrong in their organisations. That is not our duty; our duty is to the real people of this country—to the people who were drowned on the Marchioness, to their relatives, to the people who survived, and to the others who are concerned.
We owe it to them, and to all our constituents, to ensure that we have in place machinery that genuinely, properly, openly, honestly and competently investigates deaths, and presents reports that are acceptable because they are thorough and truthful. None of that can be said in the case of the Marchioness, and until it can we shall continue to support the survivors, and the relatives of those who died, and we shall join my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South in relentless pursuit of the slack, idle and incompetent Department of Transport.

Mr. Simon Hughes: First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for seeking and using the opportunity of the debate to raise again the subject of what happened to the Marchioness. In Southwark cathedral there is a memorial to the 51 people who died on that August morning four and a bit years ago. A memorial is a fine thing, and it is a fine


memorial, but those who survived that incident, and the families of those who died, would rather have a different memorial.
I hope that I can persuade Ministers that they need to revisit the series of decisions that have so far meant that there has not been what is conventionally understood to be a public inquiry. There has been no opportunity for the people with the greatest interest to ask the questions that they want to ask, and to have them answered. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government should be at all reluctant to allow that to happen now, if that should still be the request of the families and the survivors. Indeed, there is an obvious reason why it should happen now. I had rather the Minister gave a cautious non-committal reply tonight, and said that he would at least consider the question with the Secretary of State, than a speedy cavalier reply to the effect that what we ask is not possible.
I note that in the report written on the general subject of river safety—as the House has been told several times tonight, that report is, as it were, the second report following the sinking of the Marchioness—Mr. Hayes, the representative of the Law Society who was asked to undertake the report, wrote in paragraphs 1.6 and 1.7:
I was aware that the Marchioness Group and others wanted a Public Inquiry which would have had wider terms of reference than those assigned to my investigation or that of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. They argue that, with a full and public investigation into the tragedy, the whole story would have been out in the open and they could have come to terms with their loss and begun the process of grieving. They say that they cannot begin to live with their grief until a full public inquiry is held.

Mr. Wells: Why?

Mr. Hughes: I shall deal with that question in a moment.
Mr. Hayes's report continued:
When the disaster occurred I understand that the decision not to order a public inquiry was taken at No. 10 Downing Street on advice from the Department, although earlier transport disasters on a similar scale had received a different response. In this case it was decided to follow the procedure regularly adopted for the investigation of major air accidents.
The time that has passed since the Marchioness sank will have helped the process of healing in some way. It has never been the case, however, that people who unsuccessfully persist in their desire to get to the bottom of things come to accept that they have reached the end of their quest. We know from history that families will go on asking what happened until they feel that they have got the answers. Unless we give them that opportunity, they will go on asking and the questions will not go away. It would be better, more politic and fairer for the Government to accede to the request for a public inquiry.
An odd sequence of events followed the sinking of the Marchioness. First, the Government responded quickly and decided to ask the marine accident investigation branch, which had been established the month before, to carry out what was its first inquiry. The MAIB is an anomalous body. It is also an unsatisfactory agency in terms of objectivity because it operates in effect from within the Department of Transport and it is not perceived as being independent of the Department. I am not saying that there should not be an agency to do a job on behalf of that Department, but that is a different matter. The hon. Members for Newham, South and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—the Opposition spokesman on

transport—and I want another agency, entirely independent of the Government, to consider what happens when people die as a result of a public transport or other transport accident.
An independent inquiry investigated the accidents at Clapham and King's Cross and there is no reason on earth in terms of British law and administration why a similar inquiry should not be held into the sinking of the Marchioness. It is not enough for the Government to say that, after the MAIB report, they then commissioned Mr. Hayes to produce the report on river safety. That report was meant to consider the safety implications for the country of the sinking of the Marchioness and to cover wider issues than that accident, and Mr. Hayes made it clear that it would not deal with factual questions relating to the Marchioness.
The Government may say that a large number of inquiries of one sort or another have been conducted into the sinking of the Marchioness. Inquests were held, court cases were conducted and reports were published.
Before I was elected to the House, I appeared at inquests as a lawyer. I also appeared in court cases when people were prosecuted for breaching health and safety requirements and other professional and employment rules. In case I am accused of not recording a relevant fact, at some stages I was also instructed by Ready Mixed Concrete. That does not preclude me from being as critical of that company as I need to be for the purpose of this issue and debate.
None of the inquiries has been satisfactory and the procedure behind them is grossly unsatisfactory. After an accident, inquests are held, criminal prosecutions may be undertaken and it may be necessary to hold an inquiry. Society has not sorted out how those procedural systems interrelate. We should not ever put people through the living hell of an inquest that starts and never finishes, with potential prosecutions that may follow or precede the inquest and then interrelate them with a public inquiry which may or may not ever happen.
I beseech the Government—the matter is not just the responsibility of the Department of Transport—to relay the matter back to other departments, such as the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and the Law Officers Department, so that it can be looked at again. If I had ever been lucky enough to get a private Member's Bill into the top 20, I would have considered introducing a Bill to reform the inquest procedure so that this was sorted out Once and for all, so that the sequence of events happened together and people were not discriminated against in terms of the danger of prosecution, that the facts are got at quickly, and matters resolved. There is a way through and that knot needs to be untied.
That has not happened, and the fact that we had an inquest, as we were bound to have, although it was never brought to a conclusion, and the fact that there was a prosecution, although there were arguments about what it should have been for, and that it was a rather anomalous prosecution, suggest that there still is a case that a public inquiry could answer.
I pay tribute to the crew who produced the "Despatches" report last week. The points that came up in that programme were those that they were prompted to investigate because the families and the survivors kept on pushing people to investigate them. I summarise them to make them clear. There were four factual ones, and a fifth substantive one that is also factual, but raises wider issues.


The first was the visibility from the deck of the Bowbelle, which is now shown to have been poor. The ship was always too high to allow a view of river from its bow or control room. There was no view on the night in question. As the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, the whole saga up to that event shows how the Department of Transport did a poor job, which is why one suspects a cover-up. The Department was roundly criticised even by the MAIB and the Hayes report.
The Department's regulations state that the boat's maximum area of blindness should be no more than the length of two vessels. As the hon. Gentleman said, it was over 1,000 ft—twice the specified length. There was a recommendation that walkie-talkies should be used, but there was a refusal to issue them and there was no human lookout in place. The visibility question has not been adequately answered and dealt with.
The second is the telegraph system—the information system on the Bowbelle. The instructions from skipper to engine room were often inaudible and there had already been an incident involving the Bowbelle as a result of that failing. Although the crew had regularly asked for a fixed communication link, they had not received one. That must be negligence in the generic sense of the word, if nothing else. In the end, it was much more than that: such a link was not installed until 13 months after the first complaint.
Thirdly—this was alluded to all the time, and all of us who get the reports from the Port of London Authority knew it—there had been a whole series of incidents involving the Bowbelle and its sister craft. Any of us, whether on the shores of my constituency on the other side of the river, on the Southwark riparian edge, or whether from here on the Palace Terrace, have seen those long craft going up and down the river. Clearly, they are much more difficult to navigate, and they are much more liable to collision than a narrower or shorter craft.
The fourth matter, which was explicitly dealt with in the "Despatches" programme last week, and rightly alluded to by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, was the clear unsuitability of one of the crew to do the job. None of us would criticise someone for having a disability or a handicap, but it is a cause for criticism if that person, by virtue of that disability or handicap, is not able to do his job. If a crew member cannot hear properly in a post where he is required to hear to ensure that he crews his boat safely, there is something wrong. Indeed, Department of Transport regulations stated that hearing aid users should not be allowed on deck, and dealt with such disabilities or handicaps.
The last and most important issue was the location point. Where did the accident happen? What actually happened? The "Despatches" film made it clear that the marine consultant to the Department now accepts that passengers on the Marchioness would have felt something—a severe lurch to the left—if, as officially determined so far, the Bowbelle's path had been crossed by the Marchioness. In fact, both the skipper of the Hurlingham—the sister crew ship—and passengers say that the Marchioness was on a straight course. They say that it did not veer, lurch or suddenly shoot across the path of the Bowbelle in the early hours of that Sunday morning, and that it was therefore hit under Southwark bridge at the rear of the Marchioness—not amidships.
If that is true, we are presented with a crucially different fact. In a collision, the key question is, "How did the collision occur? Which bit of which vessel impacted on which bit of which other vessel, and what were the consequences?" Let me say this to the Minister: even if the other matters have been touched on, as they have, the evidence that is now clear about the point of collision suggests that the matter needs to be examined again.
I ask Ministers not to be proud about the decision to let the MAIB act or the decision to let Mr. Hayes have his report, and not to be defensive about the history of the Department of Transport, but to do the one thing that would meet the very straightforward, persistent and continuing requests of the families and the survivors: to allow someone unconnected with the incident to hear from whoever wants to give evidence, so that the answers to the question, "What happened to my brother, sister, girl friend, child or me?" can see the light of day.
Unless people who were there, or relatives or friends of people who were there, can ask those questions and every other difficult question until they receive answers, we shall continue to have debates like this. I hope that the Department will be generous enough to say that a public inquiry should be held sooner rather than later: the sooner it is held, the more accurate the answers will be, and the sooner the grief of those still suffering will be ended.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): I thank the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for raising this issue again. It is important for the House to act as a forum for important debates such as this. Let me repeat what I told the hon. Gentleman earlier this evening, when I explained why I would be answering the debate rather than my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), the Minister for Transport in London: my hon. Friend will be replying to another debate later this evening.
In preparing for tonight's debate, I was much moved by the words of the hon. Member for Newham, South in his Adjournment debate last year. He repeated some of those comments this evening to set the scene. I come to this issue with an open mind; it is not a question of pride or defensiveness. I want to make that absolutely clear.
Let me respond to the comments in reverse order. What a contrast there was between the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the rantings of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). The hon. Gentleman asked specifically why No. 10 had decided to take a particular course without being certain that that was where the decision was made. It is perfectly obvious to me that, having just set up the MAIB to investigate this sort of accident, it would have been even more extraordinary if it had been bypassed and an alternative method had been chosen to investigate the disaster.
The inquest was not used to determine culpability. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey made some extremely telling points, and he carried me with him. I shall draw his remarks about inquests to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends. He made a good point that needs examination.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Key: No. I only have about 10 minutes left.


The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked whether the inquest would be resumed and if not, why not. An application to the divisional court for judicial review of the coroner's decision not to resume the inquest was dismissed on 9 July 1993. I understand that an appeal has been lodged, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on that.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras asked if I had seen the "Despatches" programme throughout. The answer is, no, but I have done better. I have had the opportunity of studying the transcripts in detail. That is rather better than the distraction which will inevitably occur when watching the programme right through. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that, in order to get to the heart of the problem, it is sufficient just to watch a television programme right through, I am surprised at him. He has sought to smear the judicial system and the official system and bring them into disrepute.
The MAIB report is not shoddy. It is an excellent report, carried out by professionals. I think that the hon. Gentleman will regret the gratuitous offensiveness in which he has indulged by attacking public servants. Tomorrow, I shall be attending the funeral of one such public servant, killed in the course of his duty of serving the interests of transport in this country. The hon. Gentleman's attack is totally misplaced and very ill timed.
We are facing a serious issue and hon. Members should take it sufficiently seriously. Anyone who has been involved in any tragedy involving loss of life, as I and I am sure other hon. Members have been, know the deep grief that it imposes on individuals, families and communities for many years to come. That is undeniable. The well-known concern of the hon. Member for Newham, South has again been aired. I express my condolences to those involved, because I come to the issue afresh. I know that the hon. Member for Newham, South has further interests in the disaster because of his considerable knowledge and experience, to which he has referred.
The aim of the television programme, which was to set out what it claimed was "exclusive new evidence" was not met. It told a story which was fundamentally at variance with the official version. There is nothing new in that. It asserted that the story deeply compromised the Government's claim that all the facts are known. The official version of the incident is the report by the chief inspector of the MAIB, which was published in August 1991. That report was a culmination of a detailed and thorough investigation carried out by inspectors from that branch.

Ms Joan Walley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Key: No. I am sorry, but I was given 20 minutes to reply to a debate lasting an hour and a half. I must get on.
The inspectors were all well qualified. They are highly professional and experienced seafarers who are appointed to investigate accidents to or on ships.
The branch in which they serve is completely independent of those who regulate marine safety. The chief inspector reports directly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on marine accident investigations.
The television programme's claim was that MAIB's investigation did not consider all the evidence and that the new evidence that the programme brought to light justified the call for a public inquiry.
The hon. Member for Newham, South will be aware that a public inquiry into a shipping accident is called a formal investigation. The procedures for such an inquiry are set out by statute, but the purpose of such an inquiry is particularly important. It is to establish what happened and to make recommendations to ensure that the accident or incident does not recur. Those terms of reference are no more and no less than those of an investigation carried out by the MAIB. They, too, are governed by statute and the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations 1989 clearly set out, under regulation 4, the purpose of an investigation. So what would a public inquiry achieve that was not achieved by an MAIB investigation?
Let me pick out some of the points made in that television programme. First, it identified the problems of the Bowbelle's design, particularly in respect of how they affected the keeping of a proper and efficient lookout. It also indentified the communication problems between the fo'c'sle head and the bridge on those vessels and how three hand-held radios were on board the Bowbelle that night but were not in use.
The programme further commented on the fact that, traditionally, these vessels had been taken up river by pilots but that the practice had ceased some years before the Bowbelle-Marchioness accident. As regards the Marchioness, it identified the problems of keeping a proper and efficient lookout due to the vessel's design.
Although all those points were well presented in the programme, they were not new evidence. They were all dealt with in considerable detail in the MAIB report, although the programme makers omitted to say so.
The programme then listed a number of other points which, although their factual accuracy is not in question, were not relevant to the accident. One concerns the means of communication between the bridge and the engine room of the Bowbelle for the desired engine movement—the engine telegraph. It was described as an archaic system. Perhaps it is, but it had no relevance to the incident, as the captain of the Bowbelle made no attempt to alter the engine speed before the accident. Even after the accident, when he required a change in the engine speed, there is no suggestion that that archaic piece of equipment failed.
Another point raised in the programme and one that is dear to the heart of the hon. Gentleman was the Bowbelle's history. The fact that a significant number of incidents are recorded involving that vessel is not disputed, but they have no direct bearing on the collision that night. The MAIB report devotes a whole section to previous incidents and the actions taken, and clearly sets out those whose circumstances were distinctly similar to the accident under discussion.
The programme then devoted a considerable amount of time to looking into an accident that befell another of the Bow ships, the Bowsprite. That vessel broke in two in the southern North sea, sadly with the loss of four lives, approximately eight months before the Marchioness Bowbelle collision. How that accident helps support the argument for a public enquiry into the Marchioness Bowbelle accident is far from clear.
From there, the programme returned to the Marchioness-Bowbelle incident and began to focus on the involvement of the Hurlingham. That was another


passenger launch, also on a night-time disco cruise, that was in the immediate vicinity of the accident and from which some people witnessed the accident. It explained in some detail the rescue efforts that were performed by those on board and stated that those efforts had never been recognised.
I do not question the fact that some of those passengers performed heroic deeds that night, and that fact is acknowledged in the MAIB report. In his introductory letter, the chief inspector states:
My report would not be complete without recognition of the acts of bravery and skill that were performed during the search and rescue operation. These were not limited to the crews of the vessels involved in this operation but included a number of passengers.
With two thirds of the programme now completed, it finally began to introduce its aim to set out the new evidence. In the words of the commentary, it would produce the evidence of one group of witnesses that seemed to have been ignored—
The story the Government seems reluctant to hear".
That alleged new evidence was given by the skipper of the Hurlingham and two of her passengers. In essence, it was that the collision between the Marchioness and Bowbelle occurred either before the two vessels passed under Southwark bridge or as they passed through it. That evidence conflicts with the MAIB report, which considered that the collision occurred after the two vessels cleared Southwark bridge. The MAIB inspectors had access to that conflicting evidence and it was taken into account during the investigation, when the report was written.
The vast majority of witness evidence—completely ignored by the television programme—was that the collision occurred between Southwark and Cannon street bridges. That includes the evidence of passengers in the Hurlingham who saw the collision and who were sufficiently familiar with the river to recognise their whereabouts, of witnesses ashore and, perhaps most importantly, the mate of the Marchioness. It is particularly surprising that the programme made no mention of the mate's evidence on that subject.
The material evidence supports the same view. The wreck lay well to the east of Southwark bridge, and there was a strong flood tide. The programme presented the view of an expert that the alleged new evidence was supported by the nature of the damage sustained by the Marchioness. It was claimed that that indicated that she was struck near

her stern, arguing that she was on a steady course and not heading across Bowbelle's bow—as the MAIB report found. That in turn would place more responsibility on the Bowbelle than implied in the published report.
The evidence provided by the damage to the Marchioness was fully considered by the MAIB, and careful examination of the relevant excerpt from the programme shows no inconsistency with the inspector's conclusions. There is no doubt that, as the expert said, the major damage amidships occurred when the Marchioness was rolled over, not at the time of initial impact. If anything, that supports the view that the Marchioness was heading slightly across the bow of the Bowbelle.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Key: I will, against my better judgment.

Mr. Dobson: If the Minister is so confident that there is evidence from witnesses to support the MAIB's conclusions, will he do that desired by relatives of victims and survivors—publish it? Until now, it has been secret.

Mr. Key: I was about to address that point.
The programme cited one further piece of evidence to support its conclusion—the transcript of radio messages received by the Port of London authority at Woolwich, and their timing. The inspectors were well aware of that transcript. The programme disregarded the effect of the collision on the progress of the Bowbelle and the fact that it led to her partly losing control of her steering and making contact with Cannon street bridge. When allowance is made for that, the timing is fully in accord with the collision having occurred where the report found.
To sum up that long review of the programme, I must advise the hon. Member for Newham, South that it did not produce any new evidence to warrant further inquiry. That cited in the programme covered no ground not examined during the MAIB investigation, and there is no case for a public inquiry into that accident, tragic though it was.

Ms Walley: In the last minute remaining, will the Minister say why he is not prepared to make public and to place in the Library a copy of the evidence—

In accordance with Mr. Speaker's ruling—(Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.

Orders of the Day — Royal Marsden Hospital

Lady Olga Maitland: There has been some speculation about the content of my speech, not least in certain parts of the media. I make it clear that I welcome the broad thrust of the Government's reforms. Although I believe that there have been dirty tricks; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is blameless. Rather, I seek to blame petty-minded regional health authorities. My right hon. Friend and her able team have seen through those inadequate bodies and announced, rightly, their abolition. I leave it to other right hon. and hon. Members to interpret the Department's views on regional health authorities by that action.
I take this opportunity to place on record my unswerving support for the reforms put in place by the Government. There are many difficult decisions to be taken and I do not envy my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State her difficult task. I am confident that she will continue to see her way through some of the murky undergrowth that is part and parcel of the advisory process. I am certain that she will ultimately make the right decisions for London and the nation as a whole.
I have chosen to talk about the provision of cancer services in London, particularly south-west and west London. Many hon. Members will know that the London implementation group set up a group to
review specialist cancer services in London with the aim of achieving a more rational disposition, avoiding unwarranted duplication and providing a strong service and academic base for the future".
That specialty review group reported to the Secretary of State for Health and the London implementation group in June 1993. Seven months later, we are still waiting for the outcome. While the group's aims were admirable, its recommendations were not. The reviews are only advisory, and should be seen as such. The Secretary of State can choose to dismiss some of the recommendations, as she did with the Tomlinson report.
Cancer is a disease which affects all ages, both sexes and all areas of the body. The successful treatment of this complex and diverse disease has led many hospitals around the world to specialise in treating only cancer. Such specialist hospitals include the Memorial Sloan-Kettering cancer centre in New York city and the Gustave-Roussy institute in Villejuif, France.
We in London are the luckiest people, as we have the Royal Marsden hospital, with its associated Institute of Cancer Research, which provides treatment and relief from cancer for Londoners and those who live beyond. That hospital has been given as an example of one of the most successful in patient care, research and teaching by the respected Swiss-based International Union Against Cancer. That is the most prestigious international organisation involved in the fight against cancer. Among its many responsibilities, it sets standards on how to organise the fight against cancer.
As many hon. Members will know, I am one of the Royal Marsden's most ardent and loyal supporters in this place. Almost a year ago, I spoke against the threat to the Royal Marsden when it first became apparent in the Tomlinson report. Not long after that, the Secretary of State for Health declared that she could see no convincing financial case for relocating the Royal Marsden to Charing Cross. However, despite that reprieve, the threat resurfaced

in the independent specialty review of cancer services in London that followed her statement. It proposes closing the Royal Marsden, Fulham road, by centring west London cancer services at Charing Cross, and incorporating the Royal Marsden, Sutton in St. George's trust hospital, Tooting. We would be fooling ourselves if we thought that that action alone could deliver the same level of services.
Each part of the Royal Marsden has a distinct specialist role in addition to the treatment of the more common cancers. The Fulham road site specialises in cancer of the head and neck, melanoma, sarcoma, chronic leukaemia, gynaecological and urological tumours. At the Sutton site, neuro-oncology, lung cancer, lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease, thyroid cancer, acute leukaemia, myeloma, testicular tumours, achildhood tumours, clinical pharmacology and gastro-intestinal are treated.
Both sites are supported by palliative medicine, psychological medicine, comprehensive diagnostic services and rehabilitation facilities. The hospital is not naturally divisible; each part complements the other. The proposal is no more acceptable now than it was when suggested in the Tomlinson report. I intend to fight it again, with, I hope, the same success.
Before discussing the reviews and their unacceptable recommendations, I shall take time to remind the House that we are talking about not merely another London hospital, but a national, or even specialist, international institution, whose importance in the worldwide battle against cancer cannot be overestimated.
I understand that almost 400 hon. Members have received representations from the hospital pointing out that a signficant number of their constituents were seen or treated by the Royal Marsden. That figure demonstrates the national importance of the institution in fighting cancer, when local district hospitals need a specialist centre of excellence for referral.
The Royal Marsden, with its associated Institute of Cancer Research, is at the forefront in pioneering research into the causes and treatment of the disease. Examples are too numerous to mention. The Royal Marsden is leading the way in its approach. Last year, it won the Queen's award for technological achievement. It was granted jointly to the Royal Marsden, the Johnson Matthey technological centre and the Institute of Cancer Research.
Only in the past two weeks, the Royal Marsden has made further strides. For example, regular doses of drugs given to sufferers of breast cancer through a round-the-clock electronic pump may reduce the need for surgery. Consultants at the hospital have just started the first large-scale trial in Britain of a new treatment using a pump about the size of a pocket tape recorder, which patients strap to their waists. Women in the trial all have large cancers, but with no evidence of spread that would normally require a mastectomy.
I have been told by Dr. Ian Smith from the Royal Marsden that they recently completed a pilot study that has encouraged them to believe that, by using a conventional anti-tumour drug administered in that way, they can significantly improve the effectiveness of treatment. Dr. Smith said that they were pleasantly surprised to find that the cancers disappeared completely in more than half the women studied. As a result, doctors were able to avoid surgery completely. In others, the size of the cancer was greatly reduced, making mastectomy unnecessary and requiring only limited surgery.


Another example of that sort of work is the pioneering research by Dr. Trevor Fowles and Professor Michael Baum into using the contraceptive drug Tamoxifen as an aid to lowering the risk of breast cancer. They ran a pilot study of 2,000 women with a family history of breast cancer. As a result of the encouraging figures from the original trial, it is now being extended to take in a further 15,000 healthy women who may be at risk because of their age.
The Royal Marsden believes that it may be saving 3,000 lives a year. An unexpected beneficial side effect of the drug is that it also appears to help combat heart disease. Such initiatives—and I have chosen just a couple to outline—are helping to improve the quality of life immeasurably for many of us.
It must be asked who, apart from a specialist cancer hospital with such resources, can invest in the future of women who may be healthy at the moment but who are doomed to die of breast or other cancers in 10 or 20 years. This is precisely the sort of work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to in her White Paper "Health of the Nation", when she stressed the need to tackle cancer as much by prevention as by cure.
That sort of work can be done only in a comprehensive cancer centre where treatment and research go hand in hand, or, as they say at the Royal Marsden, from bench to bed and back to bench. Can anyone really imagine that that sort of arrangement between two specialist sister institutions can be replicated in ordinary general hospitals?
Hon. Members will be interested to know that representations from all over the world have been sent to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister expressing alarm and dismay that the United Kingdom could possibly dismantle a hospital of such status, given its outstanding work in the prevention and treatment of cancer—demonstrating yet again with its advances in treating breast cancer that it is at the leading edge of research. That development was heralded not only by the national press, medical journals and other institutions, but throughout the world.
I could reel off a list of dozens of internationally renowned institutions that are backing the Royal Marsden. However, I shall mention just a few. For example, there is the Ontario cancer institute in Canada, the Research Institute for Microbial Diseases in Japan, and the M.D. Anderson cancer centre attached to the university of Texas. Many institutions worldwide are chasing the same money for research. However, they realise the importance of the work of the Royal Marsden, and are therefore expressing their alarm.
I come now to the reviews whose outcomes have so explicitly resurrected the threat to the Royal Marsden. It is good to know that the Secretary of State has an independent mind. When she was faced with unwelcome decisions as a result of the Tomlinson report, she took them. However, she has also been prepared to ignore the more reckless and foolhardy advice coming from bureaucrats in the national health service.
That was demonstrated by the Royal Marsden as recently as February, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rejected Professor Tomlinson's recommendation to relocate the Royal Marsden and Royal

Brompton hospitals at a cost of £62 million. I am confident that my right hon. Friend will once again reject the same foolhardy recommendations.
The Labour party claims that those reviews are Government policy. They are not. They are reports of advice. But sometimes it is necessary to reject advice, however well intentioned it is, and follow one's instincts.
The first of the advisory reports was by the specialty review group which considered the provison of cancer services in London. That review group was required to produce its findings in a short time scale and has stated openly that the data collected presented difficulties in analysis and comparison.
I accept that, in some areas, inaccuracies may have innocently occurred due to those problems. However, the level of subjectivity, unattributable statements and misrepresentation of the information provided was not to be expected in a report of such importance.
The review group's argument against single specialty hospitals has not been substantiated, and its assertion that the Royal Marsden hospital cannot be considered as a comprehensive cancer centre is incorrect, using the review group's own criteria.
In fact, the Royal Marsden is the only hospital in London that is closest to meeting the review group's own criteria for the provision of cancer services. Why has no one questioned that contradiction within the report?
The report states that the bulk of the work at the Royal Marsden hospital is undertaken at Sutton, implying that the Fulham road site is underused and therefore dispensable. In fact, patient numbers are split 50:50. Both are integral to the comprehensive cancer service provided by the Royal Marsden hospital.
In considering the future of the Royal Marsden hospital, the review group looked at a number of options, but did not adequately or fairly explore the Royal Marsden's plans for the Chelsea health sciences scheme, which the London implementation group was given the task of examining by the Secretary of State in "Making London Better".
That idea has been expanded by Marmaduke Hussey and Sir Kenneth Stow, chairman of the Royal Marsden hospital and Institute of Cancer Research respectively, who have outlined their plan to make west London's medicine outstanding in every respect. Sir Ronald Oxburgh, the rector of Imperial College, has described the idea as a
once in a lifetime opportunity to create a grouping of medical capabilities and talent that could challenge any in the world in quality and size.
I question whether the benefits that currently exist in the relationship between the Royal Marsden, Sutton, St. George's and other hospitals would be enhanced or improved by the hospital merging with St. George's. That would more likely result in the interests of the Sutton site being lost within the priorities of the numerous services located within a large acute hospital.
It would make sense and be more beneficial if current supporting specialist links were maintained and, where possible, enhanced. The Royal Marsden should assume responsibility for the provision of cancer services at St. George's hospital on a contractual basis, as it already provides all of that hospital's radiotherapy. The identified benefits of merging the Royal Marsden, Sutton and St. George's in comparison with existing arrangements are grossly exaggerated and, more than that, unnecessarily expensive.


A further review called for by the Government looked into research carried out by the special health authorities, of which the Royal Marsden is one. Can it be coincidental that it shared common members with the specialty review and proceeded to come out with similarly damaging conclusions for the Royal Marsden? It was conducted by an expert advisory group the membership of which, in theory, should have been peer led. In fact, few members had knowledge of cancer and, even then, only in limited fields.
None of the review group had experience in managing research and development in a large organisation. However, at least three of the members were direct competitors with the Royal Marsden and the Institute of Cancer Research for research funds of their own. The Royal Marsden was also criticised in the report for being "inward looking and isolated" in the appointment of a joint director of clinical research.
Let me put the record straight. The appointment was intended from the outset to be external. Indeed, the search was conducted on a global basis. However, the indecision over the Tomlinson report blighted the post for external candidates. Professor Baum, who came to the Institute of Cancer Research in 1990 via a chair at King's, was appointed instead. Other outside candidates were considered. Even one member of the expert advisory group was approached for the post.
The search committee included two external professors, the scientific director of the Cancer Research Campaign, the second secretary of the Medical Research Council and the director of research and development at the Department of Health, Mr. Michael Peckham. That is hardly the action of an "isolated" institute, as the review team must have known.
As part of the review, international referees were approached and asked for their opinion of the Royal Marsden. Those international experts gave the hospital an outstanding rating. However, the members of the review group, none of whom were national experts, let alone international experts, took it upon themselves to ignore that advice and to downgrade it. Who on earth did they think they were? I find it surprising and irregular. One could go on to describe it as morally unjustifiable.
The whole report flies in the face of other independent reviews carried out. For example, the national research assessment exercise carried out on behalf of the Department for Education looked at 150 academic institutions. The institutions were graded on a scale of nought to five. Oxford university came first with a score of 4.8. The Royal Marsden hospital, with the Institute of Cancer Research, was graded sixth with a score of 4.4. Charing Cross hospital was graded 53rd with a score of just under 3.
Graham Hart, the permanent secretary at the Department of Health, has privately disowned parts of the expert advisory group research review on the Institute of Cancer Research which are of an adverse nature. Why, one must ask, has there been such a sustained attack on what most of us would agree is one of the finest cancer hospitals in the world and a hospital which I suggest should never have been part of the debate on acute services and overbedding in London? Let me tell the House the answer.
Many hon. Members will have driven down the Fulham road and seen as they passed the magnificent Chelsea and Westminster hospital. Its 665 beds are built around a naturally ventilated and glass-roofed atrium the size of

Wembley stadium with a mall and eight courtyards. Trees and works of art were brought in and plays are staged on a raised platform. The view of the atrium opens up immediately from the hotel-like reception. Escalators run to the main reception and an out-patients area on the first floor. From there, banks of lifts take people to the upper floors. It is an estate agent's dream.
The cost of this luxury is a record £202 million. The cost of beds averages out at nearly £250,000 each. Meanwhile, only two miles down the road, sits the Charing Cross hospital, which is only 20 years old.
Due to an act of bureaucratic vanity, not to mention bad planning, an unnecessary hospital was built at vast cost and in an area that already has sufficient hospital provision. If there had not been, there would be no problems now with the health authority casting around for a hospital to close.
After being severely castigated by the Public Accounts Committee last year for the massive planning blunder in allowing the Chelsea and Westminster to be built, North West Thames regional health authority has been determined to fabricate a role for the now redundant Charing Cross hospital to save its embarrassment. A health authority spokesman said:
We don't deny that our capital programme has been entirely eaten up by the Chelsea and Westminster during the past five years and will be again next year.
This is the same health authority which diverted money from literally hundreds of other health projects up and down the country to fill the black financial hole that is the Chelsea and Westminster on the Fulham road.
I am sure that many hon. Members will join me in congratulating the Secretary of State for Health on abolishing such wasteful health authorities, but should they be allowed to inflict such damage in their dying gasps?
I believe that much of the activity threatening the Royal Marsden has been orchestrated by the regional health authority. For example, I received a document on the future of Charing Cross hospital which included a one-page summary of key points that it wanted to convey. The document made remarks about the Royal Marsden that were factually incorrect and, as they could easily have been checked, could be subject to legal action.
I find it offensive that staff at Royal Marsden have been subjected to such indefensible slurs on their professional representations. Doctors and nurses at the Royal Marsden have spent many hours—some have spent their entire working lives—in combating cancer. For another hospital to stoop to this level shows no morals.
Several points are made that I find particularly objectionable, such as that Charing Cross
has a high reputation for serving the needs of decent everyday folk in West and Central London. We are not a hospital for the well-to-do. We have a few private patients compared to, say, the Royal Marsden Hospital where over 50 per cent. of the patients are private.
That is wrong. Only 10 per cent. of the Royal Marsden's patients are private.
The document continues:
Charing Cross Hospital is one of Britain's newest hospitals… Unlike the decaying 19th century or older hospital buildings you see in London.
The Royal Marsden has recently begun £25 million-worth of redevelopment, in particular a new clinical block at Chelsea and a purpose-built paediatric unit in Sutton. By North West Thames regional health authority's own admission, it will require £20 million of maintenance to bring Charing Cross up to an acceptable standard.


The one-page summary goes on:
Charing Cross Hospital has a formidable international track record in providing specialist care in cancer… Single specialty hospitals are not equipped to deal with the numerous complications which may arise from cancer—e.g., renal failure, respiratory failure and neurological difficulties.
Unfortunately, Charing Cross does not have
a formidable international track record",
compared to the Royal Marsden, as witnessed by its poor rating in the recent University Funding Council research assessment exercise.
Cancer as a disease is not organ-specific. The hospital therefore has a large number of specialties on site. In addition, it has links with a wide range of other specialties through its honorary consultants. The summary continues: £10 million is spent on cancer research every year by the Charing Cross Hospital.
The Royal Marsden, with its associated Institute of Cancer Research, spends more than treble this amount.
The report continues:
Charing Cross Hospital houses the biggest cancer unit in the South East of England".
That is factually incorrect and, in my opinion, a ludicrous statement. I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand my sadness and, unfortunately, my anger about the fact that the Riverside health authority, under the direction of the North West Thames regional health authority, has been allowed to put out such untruths.
What is my solution to the over-provision of services in west London? While not wishing to be drawn into a debate about whether Hammersmith hospital should move to Charing Cross hospital, or vice versa, I propose that Charing Cross's acute services should be located at the Chelsea and Westminster hospital to help to fill it, and that the provision of cancer services at Charing Cross and Hammersith hospitals should be moved to the Royal Marsden, which could then expand at marginal cost—estimated to be less than £1 million—to take on the extra patients.
That must be the least contentious solution; it would not only save the Royal Marsden but go some way to solving the problems facing the Chelsea and Westminster hospital. In effect, the Royal Marsden, with its institute, would continue to be dedicated to fighting cancer in its many forms at Chelsea and Sutton.
The Royal Marsden is not only held in the highest esteem here and abroad but is a much-loved institution. Many former patients have told me that, during the first terrifying days when their cancer was diagnosed, the very name "Royal Marsden" was a huge comfort to them. Dare I suggest that the name "Charing Cross", or even "Hammersmith", scarcely has the same resonance?
Time and again, the public have demonstrated their love for the Royal Marsden. Indeed, sometimes it has been impossible to hold them back. We have all been deluged with letters, some of which give very personal accounts. Let me put it on record, however, that I have received assurances from the chairman and the chief executive of the Royal Marsden that letter-writing campaigns by children or other groups of patients to hon. Members have in no way been orchestrated by the management of the hospital. They have been entirely spontaneous.
I was privileged recently to hand to the Prime Minister the largest petition that he has ever received. It consisted of nearly 1 million signatures asking for the Royal Marsden

to be saved in its entirety. There have also been numerous letters from distinguished supporters here and abroad, the majority of whom are internationally renowned cancer experts.
However, I should expect the Secretary of State to base her decision not on mere emotional arguments but on a rational and cost basis. By rational, I mean facts such as those presented by Dr. Michael D'Souza and 44 of his fellow GP fundholders in south-west London. With the leave of the House, I shall read part of his letter which was published in The Daily Telegraph:
We are general practitioners who are currently placing our intentions to purchase health care in 1994 for a population of about 100,000.
We are used to sending patients to the Royal Marsden and wish to go on doing so for many years to come. We declare our intention to place contracts with this hospital at its present Fulham Road site for the foreseeable future. Since it is the aim of the NHS reforms that taxpayers' money should follow where general practitioners decide to send patients, it would appear that those planning to close the Marsden now can only do so in open defiance of Government policy".
Dr. D'Souza eloquently sums up the arguments—that is what the reforms of the health service are all about.
Let us consider the moral issue of the £25 million of donations raised by the Royal Marsden from the public over the past two years. It has spent that, plus a further £13 million from the Government, on new, state-of-the-art facilities which have enabled the hospital to remain in the first division in the world. What will the generous donors think if their money ends up as rubble in the Fulham road?
Many hon. Members have told me that the Government do not want to close the Royal Marsden. Instead, they said, the Government wish to strengthen the hospital by consolidating its services on the Sutton site. Let me state now, as the Member of Parliament for Sutton and Cheam, that that is not the solution. The greatest strength of the Royal Marsden—and its associated institute—is its ability to work as one hospital from both Chelsea and Sutton, serving not only the population of west and south-west London but the country as a whole. Moreover, if the Chelsea site were closed, it would be impossible simply to rehouse all its facilities and patients at Sutton.
The Secretary of State has herself directed the Royal Marsden to prepare and submit an application for trust status. That has now been done. The Royal Marsden looks forward to the challenges of the internal market within the national health service, and believes that it will flourish. The Royal Marsden's confidence in its future as a successful trust hospital is based on the indicative contracts that it has with purchasing authorities nationwide, and the declared intentions of GP fundholders, who have complete faith in it.
The Government introduced the internal market into the national health service in the firm belief that market disciplines would radically overhaul the levels of efficiency within the NHS. It was also judged that the marketplace would be the best determinant of the nation's health needs. I welcome that wholeheartedly.
The Royal Marsden is asking for the opportunity to prove itself in the marketplace, in keeping with the Government's own philosophy. Surely it is the patients, as purchasers of hospital services, who should be trusted to decide which hospitals they want to use, thereby determining which hospitals will rightly survive in London and which will not. I leave the bureaucrats with one thought: who gains if the Royal Marsden is cut in half?

Ms Dawn Primarolo: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on initiating the debate—although I must say that I thought that it would be a more wide-ranging debate dealing with cancer services in London generally rather than simply with those offered at the Royal Marsden.
I must say that I was somewhat surprised by the hon. Lady's speech. By implication at least, she denounced the inadequacies of the internal market and its failure to protect the Royal Marsden, but she failed to recognise that the three reports on London undertaken over the past 12 months have helped to create the chaos that she described so well, and that that chaos is the result of Government policy.
The hon. Lady supports the Government's reforms—except in so far as they relate to her own hospital. I repeat that we are talking about the Government's health policy: it is simply not good enough to paint a picture in which the Secretary of State and her Ministers have no responsibility for, no idea of and no connection with the policies that they are pursuing. To try to blame it on civil servants who are responsible and accountable to those Ministers as if they had had a bad dream and decided to bring this chaos down on us is simply unacceptable.
The hon. Lady complained about and singled out Charing Cross. In doing so, she was again describing the way in which the market operates. In London, as elsewhere, the Government have been operating on the basis of a totally false premise. They promised the review of services, a planned transfer and investment in primary care. In London in particular, they have demonstrated their unique incompetence to deliver their objectives.
In describing the problems of the Royal Marsden, the hon. Lady might bear in mind the fact that they can be multiplied by 28 in London alone, where numerous hospitals are threatened with closure or mergers that they do not want. Cancer and its treatment and the importance of that treatment are, I hope, well understood by hon. Members. Cancer is the second major cause of death: one death in four is the result of it. In the age group 45 to 54, half of all female deaths are from cancer.
The Government undertook a review of facilities in London. Central London has 11 specialist cancer units, but it would be invidious to pick any one as a centre of excellence. The Royal Marsden has been mentioned, but equally, Bart's could have been mentioned, and its fate is currently unknown. The review was based on information about the number of expected cases, and the review groups made specific proposals about the north-east, south-east, south-west and west, and made recommendations about the Royal Marsden. As we have heard, there has been a massive campaign to try to protect the Royal Marsden and other hospitals from the ravages of that review.
What qualifications or abilities have the Government demonstrated to show that they understand the services that London or the rest of the country need? The answer may be found in parliamentary questions, and I shall quote from a few to show the Government's lack of understanding and knowledge.
I asked the Secretary of State for Health about the percentage of patients diagnosed as having cancer who see a cancer specialist. It is important that people have access to such services, and it is particularly important for the

Government to plan those services, although we dispute their claim that they do. I was told that the information was not held centrally.
I asked what assessment had been made of the correlation between the degree of specialisation of consultants and the levels of morbidity and mortality among their patients. The Government confirmed, even though they do not know, the number of patients who see cancer specialists. They said that the likelihood of survival is greater if people see a specialist in the discipline. We asked about the ratio of specialists to population. That ratio is among the lowest in Europe. The Government know that people should see specialists and that we have the lowest number of specialists in Europe, but they do not know whether patients see them.
We asked about the waiting times for mastectomy in the past five years, and were told that the information was not held centrally. They do not know how many specialists there are and whether they are adequate; nor do they know whether people are seeing specialists or whether target waiting times are being satisfied. That is in spite of the fact that they issue guidance and know that, even after clinical diagnosis, women have to wait from three weeks to three months for treatment.
We decided to test the Government further, and asked the Secretary of State to list the London teaching hospitals with professors of general practice. She told us that the information was not held centrally. We asked her to list the hospitals in London that had been closed since 1989. She told us that the information was not held centrally. We asked her to name the hospitals that had been closed in each of the past 10 years. She told us that the information was not held centrally.
Finally, we asked the right hon. Lady what her plans were for restructuring the national health service in London. She referred us to "Making London Better", and said that the resources would be available so that change took place
in an orderly fashion and no proposal will be agreed unless it offers a sound basis for delivering a high quality and cost-effective service to patients."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 463.]
I asked myself what the Government know about health. Do they understand that there is chaos in London, with hospitals being undermined by their policy? Do they understand that they have sacked more nurses and created more management posts than any other Government—and that in three years they have created 18,000 or more new management posts, which is more than our total number of consultants? I think that they do not.
Do the Government understand that they are now being challenged over their most basic proposal for London—investment in primary care? Doctors' leaders are contesting the Government's claim that they will bring London's primary care provision up to a national standard. You may remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is supposed to be why the chaos exists in London; the idea is that, at the end of it all, we shall have better primary care. However, having studied the FHSA development plans, doctors are saying that there are no improvements, and that drastically needed improvements will not come about next year. The general medical services committee negotiators and the Tomlinson task force doctors are considering lobbying the Minister and health managers because the situation is so bad.


What will the Government do about all that? There is a growing number of hospital hit lists and a soaring number of bureaucrats, with new jobs being created all the time. The British Medical Association tells us that the GP fundholder system has led to fast-tracking and queue-jumping. There is a cash crisis, with a £100 million gap between what is needed in London and what is available. That puts London's care at risk.
The flagship hospital, the Chelsea and Westminster, faces a loss of £1 million and has 112 empty beds, which the management describe as spare capacity:
This is entirely consistent with our plans for the future".
Presumably, when people get lost among the many facilities now offered at the hospital and start to suffer from exhaustion, they will be admitted to one of the 112 empty beds—but the people on the waiting lists will not be allowed to use them. The atmosphere among staff at that hospital is described as desperately low, because staff do not know what their future will be.
What about staff in the other hospitals? How do they know what their future will be? How are people in London to believe that the Government understand the cancer services we need, and have based their plans on proper information? The Marsden and the Institute of Cancer Research are excellent clinical and academic institutions, yet the Government are inflicting random damage on them by letting loose an internal market.
Earlier this week, a Government spokesperson admitted the chaos and problems being caused. Lady Cumberblatch said:
I recognise that it is impossible to avoid a period of uncertainty, which affects staff morale and the Government is committed to bring that uncertainty to an end as soon as possible".
That is not in sight. We have no information about when the plans will be introduced.
The Minister must tell us what the future will be for the 29 hospitals blighted in London. What is the future of cancer services? When will the additional resources for primary care be made available? When will the Government make up their mind on the three reviews? When can we expect the establishment of a health authority for London that plans London's health needs? How do the Government expect strategic planning of a health service to be undertaken while the internal market operates and destroys that planning?
Until the Government can address those questions, we can only see a future in which our centres of excellence continue to be undermined. People will receive cheap treatment, but it will not be the best treatment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) for her contribution. You may have thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that dawn was breaking early, but, alas, it was a mirage. The hon. Lady referred to Lady Cumberblatch and thus managed to combine the names of two of my noble Friends in an interesting way.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) for initiating the debate. Her constituency includes one of the Royal Marsden sites, so she is well versed in the issues surrounding the future of

that hospital. That is why, to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, South, my hon. Friend dwelt on that hospital.
My hon. Friend had an Adjournment debate on the same subject earlier this year, to which my hon. Friend the Minister for Health responded. My hon. Friend is aware that the NHS trust status application for the Royal Marsden is out for consultation until next month and she will be aware that I can say nothing which might pre-empt or prejudice that consultation or the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State which will follow.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South referred to planning blight. The Government recognise the difficulties that uncertainty about the future of health services in London can cause, but my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam will appreciate that such decisions cannot and should not be rushed: they must be right.
The Royal Marsden hospital is one of the eight London postgraduate teaching special health authorities. Its prime role, in partnership with the Institute of Cancer Research, is research and development—ranging from basic science to clinical research and health services, dissemination of good practice to the wider health service, and postgraduate and post-basic teaching and training of doctors, nurses and others. In recognition of that special role, and unlike other provider units, the hospital has for some years been managed and funded directly by the NHS Management Executive.
Before any decision is made on the Royal Marsden, the report of Professor Tomlinson, and the Government's response in "Making London Better", the recommendations of the cancer specialty review, Sir Michael Thompson's review of research at the SHAs, the decisions on the future funding of the special health authorities and the decision of the Royal Marsden to apply for trust status will all be taken into account.
I do not wish to repeat in detail the analysis that the Tomlinson report contained. Suffice it to say that although he recommended that the Royal Marsden's services on the Chelsea site should form the basis of an integrated and rationalised west London cancer service at the Charing Cross site, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said to the House earlier in the year:
On the basis of the information before me, I have decided that there is no financial case for relocating… the Royal Marsden hospitals to the Charing Cross hospital."—[Official Report, 16 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 135.]
My hon. Friend noted and paid tribute to that decision.
The Government responded in February with the publication of "Making London Better". That set out a clear framework for change. It was not the purpose of that report to lay down a blueprint for the future. We therefore established a special implementation group under the chairmanship of Sir Tim Chessels, to carry forward a structured programme of change and, as part of that change, to consult widely, openly and genuinely. The group will advise the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education on the implentation of decisions on the future development of health services in London and on the implications for medical education and research, will secure agreement among interest parties and oversee implementation of the changes.

Ms Primarolo: While the Minister is explaining the review procedure, will he tell us what steps the Government will take to protect all the hospitals while the reviews are being undertaken and there is all the


speculation about their future, so that any decisions that might be taken by the Secretary of State are not pre-empted by an internal market that has already forced the hospital into reduction or closure?

Mr. Bowis: If the hon. Lady will listen and wait, we shall come through the procedures. I have already said that nothing that I say tonight must prejudice or pre-empt anything where decisions are being taken now, or are to be delivered shortly.
A key element informing the moves towards a more streamlined hospital service is the recommendations of the six speciality reviews that were set up on the recommendation of the Tomlinson report. The specialty review reports were published in June this year and are the latest in a long line of reports to highlight the problems of duplication of specialist services in London. That duplication works against patient care and can lead to undersized units possessing resources that are not fully used.
The aim of the reviews was to recommend a more rational disposition of services in six specialties—cancer, cardiac, neurosciences, plastics and burns, renal, and children's specialist services. The primary concerns were quality of care, value for money and ensuring that London remains a centre of clinical, teaching and research excellence. The review believed that change was needed and that excellence in service, research and educational terms was more likely to be sustained in larger multi-specialty units with strong multi-faculty links. The outcome of the SHA research review also needs to be considered.
The review teams were independent, and led by eminent clinicians from the specialties concerned. Their membership included London purchasers, GPs, nurses and patient representatives. The recommendations were made following an extensive programme of visits to the hospitals that might be affected by change and took into account previous studies and written submissions from a wide range of sources. The specialty review teams each developed a specification for a specialist centre, on the basis of which they evaluated current service provision and made recommendations for the future pattern of services. Their assessments took into account available information on the scope and scale of the specialty, appropriate models of care, criteria for a tertiary centre—including size, staffing levels, facilities and links with other services—academic links and performance—including undergraduate and postgraduate teaching and research—the quality of service and convenience for patients, and the financial viability and comparative costs of hospital sites. The two main themes that emerge from the reviews' recommendations are first, London's tertiary services need rationalising to sustain excellence in service, teaching and research and to deliver good value for money and, secondly, the large number of relatively small tertiary centres in London are increasingly constrained by their small size.
It is important to remember that the specialty review reports are advice to Ministers and the service. They will help to inform decisions about the future pattern of services in London and will be considered alongside the site option appraisals. The review of research in the special health authorities, which was published in July as strategy, is

being developed by purchasers of local services. The last element is particularly important if services are to be genuinely targeted at patients' needs.
The London implementation group, which is part of the NHS Management Executive, has collated responses to the specialty reviews from the Thames RHAs, London purchasers and the hospitals affected. Those responses will also be important in informing decisions about the future configuration of hospital services, including those provided by the Royal Marsden.
The cancer specialty review was independent advice to the Government, and also to the NHS more generally. I assure my hon. Friend that it is not policy, nor was ever intended to be, and will not on its own shape the future of the Royal Marsden hospital. I can further assure her that no proposals to change cancer services in London will be agreed unless they offer a sound basis for delivering high-quality, cost-effective services to patients.
To show how seriously the Government take issues involving research and teaching, we commissioned a comprehensive review of the special health authorities' research programmes. The Royal Marsden, in line with the other special health authorities, provided evidence to an independent review group of both national and international experts set up by Professor Peckham, the NHS Management Executive's director of research and development. That distinguished review committee, led by Sir Michael Thompson, vice-chancellor of Birmingham university, reported in the summer.
My hon. Friend referred to the expert advisory group that considered the quality of research at the Royal Marsden. The group reported in confidence to Sir Michael Thompson's review committee and a copy of the report was given—also in confidence—to the chairman of the Royal Marsden special health authority. Any subsequent correspondence with the SHA was also in confidence, and it would be quite wrong for me—and not in the best interests of the hospital—to refer to the contents of that report, or indeed such correspondence, today.
In the light of the committee's report, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has approved substantial central support to protect high-quality research. By 1997, nearly two thirds of SHA funding will be provided centrally, under contracts that will offer considerable protection to these hospitals as they join the internal market from next April.
It has been Government policy for some time that the special health authorities should join the NHS internal market in April 1994 and that they should apply to become trusts—subject, of course, to public consultation and the normal assessment process. The Royal Marsden's trust application is currently out to public consultation, which ends on 3 January 1994. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should then be in a position to consider making a decision on whether to allow the hospital to proceed to trust status.
I am conscious that the Royal Marsden has been generously supported by many charitable sources. As a result, it has been able to invest millions of pounds in new equipment and bricks and mortar, which could not have taken place without this special commitment to the hospital. We certainly do not intend to put that generosity and good will at risk. Therefore, I can assure my hon. Friend that if any major change were proposed, there would be discussion with the charitable donors who have recently contributed large amounts to the hospital. The aim


would be to reach agreement on reusing donated assets elsewhere to the very best advantage. That assurance would, of course, apply not only to the Marsden but to any other hospital faced with a programme of major change.

Ms Primarolo: How would resources in one hospital be moved to another, and who would pay for the relocation?

Mr. Bowis: We are not talking about specific proposals to move anything anywhere; we are talking about discussing with the donors the results of their past donations and whether some of those resources could be moved and reused elsewhere—or perhaps used in a different way in their present location That is a matter for discussion with the donors and, whether it is the Royal Marsden or any other hospital, that is what we would expect to do.
The Government value tradition and recognise the respect and affection in which the Royal Marsden is held both nationally and internationally. However, it is not sufficient to rest on past glories. We are determined to maintain and reinforce the best research and teaching of postgraduate students in all disciplines.
Much of the NHS work in the special health authority meets specific patient needs and can be funded in part through the internal market with support for the extra service costs of research and teaching. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall exercise the greatest care in ensuring that the decisions that we make on the future of the hospital and of cancer services generally will reinforce the best research in those centres while allowing high-quality institutions outside London to benefit from NHS support for research.
The Government are concerned to ensure the provision of a consistently high standard of care and treatment for cancer patients. The Department of Health has promulgated guidance on a number of issues, including in 1984, the organisation of acute services for cancer, in 1988, the minimum viable populations for radiotherapy centres, in May 1991, quality assurance in radiotherapy and in November 1991, the treatment of ovarian cancer. It is intended to produce new guidelines on the clinical management of lung cancer in the new year.
Cancer services are funded through general allocations to health authorities. However, the Government have provided additional special funding to help develop cancer services, including £15 million in 1992–93 as the first phase of a three-year capital programme to provide linear accelerators for cancer treatment and scanners and other cancer equipment, including mammography equipment for X-ray departments. The Government have provided more than £150,000 per year for United Kingdom action in support of the Europe against cancer programme. We provided £43 million in 1993–94 for voluntary hospices, the bulk of whose patients have cancer, and supra-regional funding for four specialist cancer services to the tune of £8·6 million in 1992–93.
As my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bristol, South have said, cancer is a major cause of illness and premature death. One in three people will develop cancer at some time in their life. That is why the Government have made cancer prevention a priority in the health of the nation and have set targets to reduce incidence and death from four major cancers—lung, skin, breast and cervix.

Prevention alone is not enough. Treatment, care and palliation are also vital in working to improve public health and to reduce morbidity and mortality relating to cancer. That is why the chief medical officer has established an advisory group of acknowledged United Kingdom cancer experts to advise him on the treatment and care of patients with cancer and on the organisation and delivery of cancer services of the highest possible quality, with the aim of improving care and treatment outcomes.
It has been argued that the United Kingdom has a smaller number of cancer specialists—oncologists—per head of population than any other country. It must be understood that many clinicians—surgeons, radiotherapists, physicians and general practitioners—have a role to play in the treatment and care of cancer. Crude comparisons of the numbers of oncologists is a misleading way of trying to estimate levels of service for cancer treatment. We are concerned to ensure that people with cancer, as with all other conditions, receive flexible and responsive treatment to meet their health needs, preferably close to home so that they have the day-to-day support of their family and friends.
The Government are encouraging health authorities to increase the numbers of consultants by 2 per cent. per year to ensure a consistently high standard of care around the country. However, in increasing consultant numbers, it is for health authorities to decide the balance between specialties in the light of demands on services.
Unlike other medical specialities, radiotherapy is devoted exclusively to cancer care. It requires a critical mass of professional and scientific equipment. The recommended minimum population for a radiotherapy centre is two thirds of a million. The Government are concerned at suggestions that patient services might suffer because of outdated radiotherapy and other specialist equipment. That is why we have made £15 million available over three years—1992–93 to 1994–95—as part of a rolling programme to help replace equipment. That concentrates largely on the provision of linear accelerators and other equipment. We encourage very high standards of quality and safety, and we promulgated guidance on quality assurance in radiotherapy in November 1991. Some equipment is old and is already being replaced, but it still gives safe and effective treatment.
Funding was provided from this programme for hospitals in London in 1992–93. Linear accelerators were provided to the Charing Cross hospital and the London hospital, as well as to Mount Vernon hospital and the Royal Marsden hospital at Sutton, Surrey. Both the latter provide services for patients from London and the surrounding area.
There are a number of specialist cancer centres around the country, such as the Christie hospital, Manchester as well as the Royal Marsden SHA.
There is no quantitative evidence to support the claim that people treated for commonly occurring cancers in general hospitals do badly and may die unnecessarily. Such claims only cause anxiety to patients and relatives. The claim that patients do better in specialist cancer centres is also unquantified, except for comparatively rare conditions such as certain bone tumours, retinoblastoma, large eye tumours, and children's cancers. Where the need for specialist centres is established, the Government have provided additional funding. Concentrating all cancer treatment in specialist centres would require patients to travel further than they do now for regular treatment. There


is a clear need to evaluate the relative effectiveness and outcomes of treatment and care in specialist units and in district general hospitals, to evaluate the most effective pattern of cancer services for patients and the public health. Any assessment of outcome should consider not only the length of survival but quality of life. These are highly complex issues. That is why the chief medical officer has asked a group of cancer experts to look at this, as I said earlier. We await that advice with interest.

Ms Primarolo: I was told in a written answer:
Confidential audit work supported by the Department of Health, and international studies, indicate that consultants with specialist skills and experience achieve better outcomes".— [Official Report, 29 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 302.]
Why do the Government give such a written answer when the Minister has just told the House that there was no proof? Can the Minister explain that?

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Lady is talking about people and I was talking about centres.
The key to successful treatment for many cancers is early detection. That is why we have put so much effort into cancer prevention and education to improve awareness of cancer and early symptoms and to encourage people to come forward for treatment. Cancer is a key area in the "Health of the Nation" and we have set firm targets for four cancers. The United Kingdom firmly supports the Europe against cancer programme and we lead Europe in having established national screening programmes for breast and cervical cancer.
The NHS breast and cervical screening programmes are very successful. Uptake of screening in London may be lower than the national average, but this pattern is mirrored in other large inner-city areas such as Birmingham, and reflects to a large extent the problems of providing primary care services in areas with a substantial number of homeless or transient people and an ethnic minority community for whom English is not a first language.
To answer the hon. Lady's point, that is why we are spending an additional £40 million on primary care in inner London health districts and a further £7 million on voluntary sector initiatives. I hope that she will join me in welcoming the moves already in the graph on cancer in the first full year of "Health of the Nation", where we see a 1·2 per cent. reduction in lung cancer deaths for women under the age of 75, a 3 per cent. reduction for men under the age of 75, and a 2·7 per cent. reduction in deaths from breast cancer. Those are steps in the right direction towards the targets that we have set.
The hon. Lady also mentioned statistics, and cancer registration data are vital to monitor trends in the incidence of cancer over the years. As she knows, the data are collected regionally and consolidated nationally by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. There have been criticisms in recent years that data are incomplete and sometimes out of date, which is why the Department of Health set up a review of improvements recommended to the national cancer registration system to enable better monitoring of the effectiveness of measures to combat cancer. The OPCS has made real progress in improving computerisation of the national system and a senior doctor in the Department of Health chairs a steering group to oversee improvements, which includes representatives from registries and the relevant professional bodies. The outcome will be more accurate data provided more speedily.
Research is the lifeblood of the NHS. London is at the leading edge and we have taken positive steps to ensure that it remains so. In the 1992–93 financial year, the Department spent approximately £1·4 million on cancer research through its health and personal social services centrally commissioned programme. That includes research undertaken in London, such as that of the cancer screening evaluation unit, clinical operational research unit, and social medicine and health services research into cervical and breast cancer.
The Thompson report identified special health authority research of high scientific quality and importance to the NHS generally. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will be delighted, as I am, that the work of some research teams was rated among the best in the same field internationally or in the lead nationally. Following the research review, we announced substantial central support over the next three years to protect high-quality research and development in SHAs.
The second recent initiative was the creation last month of a research and development task force under the chairmanship of Professor Anthony Culyer, pro-vice chancellor of York university, to review the ways in which the NHS currently funds its own research and development and supports that funded by others. Its findings are expected next spring. That is another demonstration of our determination to preserve and to extend our enviable record in health research.
An advisory group under the NHS research and development programme was formed to review areas of need relating to cancer. It will make recommendations about priorities to the director of research and development next summer, focusing primarily on the needs of the NHS. That guidance will be particularly important to providers of research that the NHS needs, and that must include all research teams in London.
In a broader sense, London plays a particular and important role in the national research and development programme for cancer that fully involves NHS research and development, major charities and also many smaller ones, the Medical Research Council, SHAs and London university.
If London is to be best equipped to undertake world-beating cancer research in future, a great number of factors must be considered. For example, advice on the future organisation of cancer research suggests that basic research will become more complex and rely more on expensive equipment and specialised technical staff. We were advised by the specialty review that much of that research is likely to involve techniques beyond the cancer field and that there is growing importance in postgraduate training of a multidisciplinary—that is, integrated care—approach to cancer care. We know, too, that clinical research is heavily dependent on a sufficiently high throughput of patients.
We must build on the current strengths of London's research institutions, developing existing links and collaborative working. To take one example from the cancer specialty review report, cancer research at Middlesex and University College hospitals in association with University college is highly regarded nationally. It is substantial in volume and wide ranging—from basic science and molecular medicine to clinical research and development. Strong research activity is found in surgical, clinical and medical oncology. Recent research investment in that respect totals £16 million.


London's influence on research nationally is immense. We are determined to strengthen the capital's international reputation for medical research, including cancer research.

Orders of the Day — Child Support Agency

Mr. George Mudie: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the operation of the Child Support Agency on the Floor of the House, but I am sad that the hour is such that few hon. Members are present. I hope, with other hon. Members, to impress on the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security the devastating effect of the Child Support Act 1991 on thousands of constituents throughout the country represented by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. As the hon. Gentleman is one of the most sensitive, if not more intelligent, Ministers in the Department of Social Security, I am sure that he will take the absence of right hon. and hon. Members as reflecting only the late hour and the heavy day that the House had yesterday.
I sought this debate for three reasons. First, the 1991 Act is having a fearsome effect on a large number of individuals and families.
They are not errant parents and youths, but responsible adults, most of whom have already made maintenance orders through the court and are making a contribution to their child. They are being hit out of the blue with demands that may keep some Treasury accountant happy, but make the individuals feel helpless and powerless. They see standards of life that they have rebuilt taken away from them, leaving them with no opportunity to appeal.
My second reason is that, despite the fact that the Government seem aware of the growing problems thrown up as a result of the Child Support Act 1991, there seems to be a difference of opinion on how to deal with them. In the Chamber, the Prime Minister promised a review which he seemingly forced on a reluctant Department of Social Security. But the Department is apparently hostile to the idea of changes and defensive about the agency, and gives the impression that it wants to stall for as long as possible to see whether the pressure will blow itself away.
When the agency's director came before the Select Committee on Social Security, she spoke of an even longer time scale for the review than had been mentioned in the House. She said:
The Department of Social Security will deal with the evaluation of the Act, and it will probably be over an eight to 10 year period.
If that is a sign of what lies behind the Prime Minister's promise of an early review, it will be extremely bad news to thousands of people throughout the country.
My third reason involves the protests that have arisen from the first 36,000 maintenance assessments—the total number sent out by the CSA to the end of September. We have seen the pressure that has arisen from, and the response to, those assessments. But, as the Minister is aware, that figure is only the tip of the iceberg. By the end of the year's operations—April next year—the agency predicts that it will have made 1 million approaches, and 750,000 assessments will have been made by agreement or otherwise. Hon. Members have encountered such pressure after 36,000 assessments, but, by next April, 750,000 families will have received such news.
Harm is being done to people. There is apparent indecision on the part of the Government about how to respond. The numbers will explode in the next few months. Those are sensible enough reasons for bringing the subject to the Floor of the House.


The basis of the Act is not contested. Neither here nor in my constituency have I heard any challenges being made to the Act's central aim—that, when a relationship ends, the father or mother, who become, in the slightly offensive terms of the Act, the "absent parent", should continue to provide financially for the well-being of the children from the relationship.
It is accepted that, for whatever reasons—Government cuts in staff have played a major part—the old system was falling into disrepute. The numbers of lone parents receiving maintenance was continuing to fall, and the amounts paid varied to such a degree as to deny adequate defence. However, the replacement of the flexibility of the court system with an administrative formula with no flexibility has, for many people, meant the exchange of one extreme for another.
When the previous Under-Secretary of State for Social Security replied to the Second Reading debate on 4 June 1991, he said:
I pledge to the House that we shall continue to listen carefully to sensible ideas for improving the Bill in Committee and its remaining stages. We shall honour our obligations to consult widely on the preparation and content of the regulations that will be occasioned by the Bill.
The Bill relates to complex areas of social relationships, and we recognise that it would not be an easy task to get the Bill entirely right at the first attempt.
That is why many of its procedural details have been framed in the form of regulations. Should we need to change any of those regulations in the light of experience, that can be done in such a way that it will not affect the Bill's primary purpose of putting children first."—[Official Report, 4 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 242.]
Perusal of the Committee proceedings after that speech shows that there was a feeling that the Government had not listened, but, as is customary in the Committee Corridor, saw any challenge to the details of the Bill not as a helpful response—even from an Opposition who had welcomed the principle—but as a hostile act. Therefore, the opportunity was lost as the Bill passed through the House. The question now is whether the Minister will have the humility to make changes or the Act will fall into disrepute and the fine central aim of providing for children be lost.
What must he done? For a start, hon. Members and people in the country need some assurance that the hijacking of the Act by the Treasury will be resisted in future. Because of various events over the past few months, it is clear that the primary purpose of the Act—to provide for children—has taken second place to replacing Government money to lone parents on income support and family credit by absent parents' contributions.
If any hon. Member feels that that is an exaggeration, he should consider a number of facts. It is clear that, whatever lip service is paid to providing lone parents with help, the overriding priority has been to save the Exchequer money. Some £530 million is to be extracted from absent parents this financial year, yet only £50 million will find its way to care parents. That is quite a division of the spoils—which, according to the Minister's evidence in the Select Committee, will rise to £900 million within four years.
Further evidence emerged in July, when the Child Support Agency discovered from the first quarter's figures that, on assessments and, more importantly, benefit savings, it would have a massive shortfall. The Guardian reported a July strategy meeting and outlined what was subsequently confirmed as the new strategy. That consisted of three tactics—first, concentrating on middle-class

fathers; secondly, maximising maintenance yield; and thirdly, that this was not the time for cases that should receive early attention.
I shall read specific statements made at the Select Committee, which the Committee accepted as genuine. The first is:
staff of the Child Support Agency were being told to concentrate on extracting maintenance payments from middle-class fathers because the agency is in danger of failing to hit its first-year target of saving the taxpayer £530 million.
The second is:
The name of the game is maximising the maintenance yield—don't waste a lot of time on non-profitable stuff.
The third is:
This is not the time for the cases we know should get early attention but which will need a lot of effort to extract money.
I ask the Minister to examine those statements and tell the House where the children or children's welfare is mentioned. Do those phrases and sentiments suggest concern for children, or a desperate attempt to meet financial targets imposed by the Treasury?
Take a look at the title proudly volunteered to the Select Committee and proudly given by the CSA to its July strategy—"closing the gap". Does that refer to a delicate attempt to redistribute money between partners while keeping an already damaged relationship together? I think not. It is more a case of bridging the gap between forecast and budget outcome at the Treasury's request.
Thirdly, only good taste, for which I am famed, prevents me from exploring the disgracefully insensitive performance-related salary awarded to the agency's director. Only continuing good taste prevents me from speculating on the part that that played in the panic July measures. Were the measures foisted on the director by the Treasury or the politicians, or were they the director's measures to protect her salary? What a disgraceful situation in which to place a public servant in such a delicate and sensitive area of public service work.
Lastly, there is confusion over who is being targeted by the agency. When the measure was first raised by Baroness Thatcher, it was in the context of errant fathers, as she so quaintly phrased it. Yet the priority spelled out by the director to the Select Committee suggested that the hunt for errant fathers had been dropped in favour of those absent parents who had already agreed maintenance payments and who were easy to find because of their sense of responsibility.
Days later, the Minister sought to assure the Select Committee that that was not the policy, but the leaked memo in The Guardian and the exigencies of the Treasury targets suggest that the easy target was being selected, above all for financial reasons, and that gave rise to the rush of letters from angry constituents complaining of that strategy.
There are good reasons for believing that the entirely acceptable principle in the Act has been pragmatically corrupted for financial reasons, and that should end before it brings further anger from the targeted responsible parents.
But even if that were to happen, a number of detailed matters require urgent action. A number are dealt with in the admirable Select Committee report published last week. I say "admirable", because it has many good suggestions, but it does not detail the maximum changes required; rather, it suggests the areas requiring urgent movement.


The major matter requiring attention is the inflexibility of the calculations. The different amounts awarded by the courts were a major reason for the changed system. Because of that, flexibility seems to be regarded as something to be avoided at all times. The calculation for exempt income—that is, the amount that the absent parent requires for his or her essential expenses—is so rigid and limited that it will cause genuine problems in the short term and in the future.
Interestingly enough, the Select Committee suggested that the £8 disregard might be increased to £40, and that would be a welcome step for many parents who have been hit by that inflexibility.
The Select Committee lists a number of genuine items that are not taken into account—the cost of travel to work; the expense of visiting children or vice versa; the inescapable costs of caring for stepchildren; the parent-in-care element in the maintenance requirement; and fees for collection and assessment of child maintenance. Travel-to-work costs are important and can be a vital element in keeping the absent parent in work and so able to pay the benefit. That may be important, yet it is not permitted or seen as important enough to include in the formula.
Each of the points that I have outlined can be argued away, but if they are not taken into account, they can jeopardise the ability of the absent parent to contribute to the upkeep of the child. By not allowing for expenses connected with the parent visiting the children or vice versa, the formula can damage or even destroy the continuing relationship between the child and absent parent.
Then there is the human difficulty caused by hitting the absent parent with the result of the assessment without warning, without giving the parent any opportunity to adjust his finances and without any real regard for the second family. I should like to demonstrate this by giving some details of a family in Leeds. I have sent to the Prime Minister a copy of a letter that the family sent to me. It quietly spells out what, in the name of a good idea, but one administered soullessly and with no finesse, the Act is doing to ordinary, responsible citizens.
The man's marriage broke up 11 years ago. He handed over the house and a capital sum. He has continued for the past 11 years, on request, to buy clothes and presents and to pay for holidays, as well as paying a sum agreed by the county court. All those facts have been ignored by the CSA. Three years ago, before the Act was a twinkle in the Minister's eye—before it was introduced in the House—the man extended his mortgage. It is now £189 per month. The CSA will recognise £60 a month.
This August, before the assessment landed on the man's doormat, before he was even aware that he was being assessed, his partner, who works in her own right, agreed that, with her finances as they were, she could buy a car. They got a loan and she bought a car. When couple approached the CSA to say that they would no longer be able to afford the car, the CSA's advice was, "Sell it. The loan is not considered." The endowment mortgage will not be considered either. Among his essential housing costs which the CSA and the Act refuse to acknowledge is his

community charge. It is not regarded as essential. If he does not pay, he will go to gaol, but to the CSA it is not an essential housing cost.
From that one individual's case, similar to so many throughout the country, I hope that someone in government recognises what the Government are doing to hardworking individuals who simply do not understand what is hitting them and why. The calculations may be correct; they may flow from an acceptable wish to see more paid to the child; but does no one understand the need to give people time to adjust their spending so that they can cope? Can no one in government understand the bitterness which is potentially generated in the second family as a result of the assessment landing on the doormat?
I sent the man's letter to the Prime Minister, asking specifically that he should not follow his usual and acceptable practice of passing the letter to the Department of Social Security for answer. I did not want a heartless defence of an insensitive Act. I felt that the Prime Minister should read the details himself and decide whether he could defend a machine that was getting dangerously out of control.
I do not know about the Minister's experience, but my experience over a long life—too long for my happiness—is that people spend up to their income. On my Member of Parliament's salary, I cannot understand how someone survives on £15,000. When I was on £15,000, I could not understand how someone could survive on £8,000. People tend to spend to their income. In fact, nowadays people tend to spend beyond their income. Against the background of that natural fact of life, do not the Government understand what the effect is when the agency makes an assessment so devastating in its financial consequences? Do they not understand the need for some phasing in?
Another change that would increase the chances of the Act being accepted is if the parent with care received a share of the extra money. Earlier, I gave the proportions that go to the state and parent. For every £11 that is gained from absent parents, £10 goes to the state and only £1 goes to the parent with care. Any money that is taken from the absent parent will only substitute for income support, and will probably lose that parent his or her passport to other benefits, such as school dinners. The Government could sensibly allow a financial disregard, which would improve resources for the child. The Australian system divides money raised from absent parents 50:50 between state and parent, and evidence suggests that carers and absent parents accept the arrangement in much better humour.
The Government must stop the retrospective attack on clean-break settlements. There is no logical reason why they cannot be computed, so the Government should stop their attack on people who acted in good faith in the past. It must now be accepted that this highly regarded method of keeping the parent with care and children in the family home in familiar circumstances, among friends and familiar neighbours and, probably most important, permitting the child to continue at the same school with their friends while the family goes through one of the most traumatic things that can happen to a family has been destroyed by the working of the Act.
The least that the Government can do, therefore, is overcome the lazy, unfeeling, bureaucratic opposition to making such settlements a financial factor for past awards.


Even if they only draw a line before which clean-break settlements will be acceptable, at least they will keep good faith with people who have acted in extremely good faith.
I have attempted to outline briefly the difficulties that the Act is causing. I emphasise the central point: what is at issue is not the provision of further financial assistance to children but the inflexibility of the method, the lack of notice and the Government' s refusal to share money so that children gain a direct benefit.
I am grateful for your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and for this opportunity, even at this terrible hour, to state the case for so many of my constituents who find themselves singled out for such heartless treatment. Their ordeal is being shared by many throughout the land. I welcome the opportunity of speaking quietly about their predicament. They—and, I fervently hope, someone in government—are listening.

Mr. Thomas Graham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) on an excellent, well-researched speech. By raising the subject, he has done a tremendous service to men and families outside the House who are suffering from the Government's actions.
I do not speak quietly: I make no bones about it—I have never had a quiet voice. The other week, a man and woman came into my surgery with two kids. They are trying to do their best, but the Government are ploughing them into an early grave. They both broke down in front of me. If the Minister had seen that, it would have broken his heart. He would have seen two young kids grasping at their parents's legs, not understanding what was happening but breaking their hearts crying. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) knows a little about the case because it is partly based in his constituency. I did not know what to do because I was heartbroken myself to see a family shrivel and nearly die before me because of the Child Support Agency and the way it hounds people for extra money. In this case, it is hounding a man who has been to court and agreed a payment and thought that that was the end of the matter. He has never run away from his commitment to his previous family. There was no question of his doing that, but he was at my surgery pleading for help.
I have written to the Minister and his Department about many such cases, so they are not new to him. I shall not cite all the similar examples but I will refresh the Minister's memory. In one case, the payment was set at £57·51 per week—let us not forget the 51 p—and was due to be paid from 22 October 1993. The Government's attitude is hilarious, especially when one thinks of the previous Cabinet, with which I shall deal in a moment. The man's average wage ranged from £87 to £174. I have a list of similar cases. The Government have the list, as has the CSA.
The case that I have cited is that of a man working overtime and doing all that he can to try to make a few bob while the CSA is trying to take £57 a week from him. It is crazy. The man came to see me, at his wits' end. He does not know whether to dive into the Tay or the Clyde or to stow away on a boat to another country—perhaps Yugoslavia, where he would probably receive more care and attention than the Government have given him.
I remember when the previous Prime Minister said that we should pursue absent fathers. There is no question but that there was some sympathy for that view—no one wants to see a guy deserting his family without paying—but the harrying and hounding now taking place belongs to the Dark Ages.
It is like the Spanish Inquisition and the hunting of witches who were burnt at the stake. It is unbelievable. When I think of the Cabinet, I remember a great song that we have in Scotland called "Donald, Where's your Trousers?" This lot do not know how to keep their trousers on, with the result that they spend too much time fornicating in bloody London. The country has debts of £50 billion because this mob cannot run the country and they are now going to hound everyone to get money, but they are chasing men who have made commitments through the courts.
I deal now with the case that really gets to me. It concerns a man who wrote to me but who is not my constituent, although his father is. I do not want to say a great deal tonight, but I want the opportunity to read out a series of letters from one family. The Minister's people have the letter that I am about to read. It may not be the biggest heartbreaker that I have ever heard, but it goes straight to my heart and I hope that the Minister's head can fix it.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: My hon. Friend has hit on a very important point. Part of the problem is that the Minister does not see these letters, because as soon as they hit his desk he refers them to the executive agency and we cannot get a reply from him.

Mr. Graham: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. As he said, letters sent to the Prime Minister are passed on to someone else. I am beginning to wonder whether the Prime Minister has difficulty reading. Perhaps he should take a wee bit of time to read some of those letters; if he did, I am sure that some ministerial proposals would never reach Government level.
I hope that the Minister will accept that our constituents' words sometimes speak more clearly than fancy words or jargon. The letter that I received reads:
I am writing from the above address which is my son's house, and on his behalf I would like to explain his problem.
Basically it concerns the Child Support Agency. My son"—
I shall not use the man's or the family's name —
has been driven to despair by the worry it"—
the Child Support Agency—
is bringing.
My constituent's father goes on:
Two years ago his wife walked out with another man taking the two children. Although she is the guilty party I realise this cuts no ice with the CSA.
However only the youngest boy … is his child, so in consultation with the DSS it was decided he would pay £20 per week for the one son. About four months ago the DSS allowed him to cut this to £10 per week on the grounds of his financial situation".
His rent is £46 and his community charge £9 a week. Once he has paid for his light, heating, food and travelling expenses, he is left with nothing out of his £150 take-home pay.
The letter goes on:
Now the CSA will be hounding him for about £40 per week and they want £44 administration costs and £66 for arranging for the money to be paid to his wife, which at the moment costs him nothing as he has the children (two boys) for approximately three days every fortnight. It used to be weekly but he had to cut it down owing to cost. He hands the money over fortnightly and


gets her to sign for it. Incidentally, my son is asthmatic and pays £9 to £10 a time for his medicine. He is also being taxed as a single man. Everyone wants blood!
Sorry to be so long winded but this is a horror story.
I myself am a 72-year-old pensioner".
I shall not go into all the details, but the man goes on about how his son Dennis has changed his job to a firm in Port Glasgow to try to better himself financially. His father tries to help by running him to work, and so on. He works continental shifts. As the House will be able to imagine, it is almost impossible to co-ordinate buses and trains from Erskine to Port Glasgow. I represent the constituency and know the difficulties.
The man lists a catalogue of problems that his son has, concluding:
The bottom line is if we give him our car or buy him a cheap banger he will not be able to run it because this CSA only allows rent, community charge and a small amount for food set against take home pay. Nothing is allowed for travelling, medicine, etc. In other words, it is persecuting reasonable fathers who are already paying what they can and also making them pay for the missing fathers who they do not aim to trace.
The tragic result of this ill thought out and wicked scheme is that my son is seriously thinking that he may give up his work altogether and come to stay"—
with his mum and dad, that is. The letter points out:
at least he would have food and bed and less worry. What a future. And the CSA would get nothing.
I imagine there must be a lot of other people in this position but I am hoping that you can air this situation in the House of Commons.
When I have finished my speech, I will pass the letter to the Minister so that he will know about the case.
I replied to that letter and received another, which stated:
Thank you for your two letters pertaining to my son's problems. Obviously you are trying hard to help him—much appreciated although it seems likely to be falling on deaf ears at the CSA, sorry the KGB".
The man has taken to calling it the KGB. The letter continues:
Time is running out for Dennis, they want £41·50 weekly from him, so leaving him £11·50 a week to feed himself and buy essentials for the house.
As a last resort, he will pack in his job and condemn himself to years on the dole …
I received a letter from the man's son, and it is heart breaking. I shall pass those letters to the Minister.
This situation is arising because of the Government's mismanagement of the economy. They are driving folk to an early grave. Men who have made a commitment in court are easy targets and the attitude is, "Let's chase them." The Government must stop this hounding and harrowing and must direct the CSA to do its job properly. It must not take the easy option of trying to take £531 million from such people. If the Government continue in this way, it will cost much more.
What will happen if these folk go unemployed or go underground? Who will pick up the tab if that happens? It will be the ratepayer and the taxpayer. Once again, this bankrupt Government's policies will drive us into insane situations. These men and women are not hiding from the system: they have been exposed to it and it is burying them. The Minister must listen to us when we raise these cases and give us a reply that will give these folk some hope that they can live from day to day without thinking of putting their head in an oven.
If the Government do not listen, they will reap the bitter harvest of many parents abandoning all hope. I do not think

that the Government's purpose was to see men and women abandoning hope and children denied loving parents, even though those parents are separated. Surely that is not what the agency is about.

Mr. Tim Devlin: On Saturday, I conducted one of the largest surgeries that I can remember since becoming a Member of Parliament. When I turned up with my list of people whom I had to see, I was surprised to find that fully one third of them would complain about the Child Support Agency. All those people were already paying maintenance and were in respectable occupations. They were police officers, special constables, local government officers and skilled workers in local industries —people who had a stake in society and who were working hard and doing their best to make ends meet. On the figures that they gave, they seemed to be faced with highly unreasonable demands from the CSA.
When I voted for the Child Support Act 1991, it was on the basis that we would pursue the three quarters of fathers who make no contribution whatever to the welfare of their children. I have seen the figures in the brief, but it appears that the agency is first going after those who made a contribution or are making continuing contributions. The agency is not making a distinction between cases in which a court has made a settlement of a one-off payment of equity in a house or the full value of a house or a lump sum, pension arrangement or contribution from bonuses, clothing and so on, and other types of case.
We are seeing the implementation of a purely mechanistic approach to the problem of obtaining maintenance payments from fathers. The automaticity of the mechanism is causing great concern. Some women are seriously thinking of leaving their husbands because they had a son or daughter in a previous marriage, and their children are now being prejudiced by the possible outcome of an assessment given over the telephone by a junior official in the Child Support Agency. That official may show absolutely no sympathy for the way in which current arrangements have been fixed and may say that no transitional arrangements are possible.
As the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) said, there are no transitional arrangements or allowances to help people to readjust to their circumstances. Worse, people may even be asked to contribute a lump sum in back payments from a date specified by the agency, without any reference to those concerned.
When I had seen the eight or nine people who came to see me about that problem last Saturday, I did not realise that I would have an opportunity to raise the matter in the House so soon. I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that all the people whom I saw on Saturday professed—I believe them—to be Conservative voters. They are all people who had previously seen our party as the party which would track down the feckless and chase up the people who make no contribution. Yet they now find themselves in the peculiar position of being faced with bills that they simply cannot pay.
The formula being applied does not take account of everyday payments that we all have to make, such as council tax, telephone bills, bills for lighting and heating, and other fixed costs that we all normally have to pick up in our everyday lives. The only payments taken into account are mortgage payments. Of course, many people


have taken on mortgages, thinking themselves safe in the knowledge that, having settled a one-off arrangement with their first wives, they no longer have to make a greater contribution than that fixed by the court. I was interested to hear that when one of the first cases went back to the court recently, the court, which has a much great discretion than Child Support Agency officials, refixed the original maintenance payments. That must have been possible because the court had the inherent ability to be much more flexible and to take into account the individual case. I do not say that the agency is therefore a bad thing; I believe that it is a good thing, and should be supported. But it needs to be more flexibile and to take more account of individual circumstances. That is not what it is doing at the moment.
Another aspect that we should consider is the idea of a transitional arrangement to help people to readjust. Allied to that is the £44 administration cost that one has to pay when first assessed. If the assessment is wrong and one wants to be reassessed, one has to pay another £44; if one's circumstances change again and one needs to be reassessed again, one has to pay another—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): No.

Mr. Devlin: That is what I have been told is being said to fathers in my constituency by the agency officials. If that is not true, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about the subject, would put that fact on the record so that I can direct agency officials to his answer as a piece of guidance.

Mr. Graham: I can help the hon. Gentleman there. I have a list of all the stuff that was sent out that proves that he is right and that people do have to pay the money.

Mr. Devlin: That is what I am told and that certainly seemed to be what was happening to the nine or so people whom I saw on Saturday.
Finally, I shall draw the attention of the House to the mechanism for cutting the benefit of mothers who refuse to name the father of their child, if they know who the father is. Several people have told me that here have been cases in which the father refunds the cut—it is about £8 a week —to the mother on the understanding that she will not name him. I do not know what can be done to tackle that practice, but I consider it to be a straightforward social security fraud, on which we must crack down. I do not want the Child Support Agency to have to behave like the Spanish inquisition, or any of the other organisations that have been cited, but it is important that we gain some contribution from fathers who desert their children or who, for one reason or another, are separated from them.
That people should make some contribution for their children is a question of individual responsibility. An urgent review of the work of the agency should be carried out to ensure that greater flexibility is shown in individual circumstances, so that an equitable solution is arrived at in each case.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: I congratulate all the hon. Members who have spoken in this important debate. They have all said much the same thing and I do not apologise for the fact that I will do the same.

We have all identified the problems that have been revealed to us daily at our surgeries, constituency offices and in messages sent to the House.
In common with those who have spoken, I nail my colours to the mast in support of the good principle behind the Child Support Agency. If the 1991 Act was designed to make parents who have separated take joint responsibility for their children, it has singularly failed in that objective. More and more people have reached the conclusion that that is not the purpose of the Act. They believe that it is Treasury driven.
The Child Support Agency is not closing the gap between separated families but widening the gulf between them. It is common for people to tell hon. Members that, prior to the establishment of the agency, they had enjoyed quite amicable relations with their estranged partners. Now those estranged partners are at each other's throats and are contemplating all sorts of legal actions against one and another—all because of that agency.
I wrote to the Minister about the policy behind the Child Support Agency. I resent the fact that he referred my letter to a paid official of an executive agency, who then wrote to tell me about that policy. I knew what that policy was when I wrote to the Minister in the first place. I wanted to get the Minister to listen and to change it. When I intervened earlier, I said that I was worried that letters that hit the Minister's desk were transferred immediately to those in the executive agency. If that is not the case, I should like the Minister to reply to a specific question. How do I get to him? How do I get a constituency case to him, so that he intervenes rather than merely refers it to the chief executive of the agency?
I could highlight many cases that reveal the problems caused by the Child Support Agency, but I will quote just two that happen to spring to mind. A consultant who lives near me, and who works in a hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), has married for the second time. He and his second wife have reasonably good incomes. They had planned to have a second family, but he now finds that his first wife, who had never made contact with the agency, is now challenging the support that he provides. That support is the subject of an assessment. That consultant, who uses his great expertise and skills in a hospital, has told me that if he took into account housing benefit and all the other benefits to which he might be entitled were he out of work, he might be marginally better off it he gave up the ghost. I will tell the House why in a moment.
The second case concerns a man whom I happen to have known for a long time. He and his wife became estranged because his wife suffers from an alcohol-related problem, which she is trying to overcome. When they separated, his wife moved into a home that she had inherited from a relative, so it was paid for. The husband paid the mortgage and has discharged, or is discharging, all the other debts. Now, he is worrying whether, by paying so much money to his wife, he is giving her the most appropriate support, given her alcohol problem. That is also the advice that he is getting from the clinic that she attends. I know that such cases are hard to regulate, and that is why all hon. Members have spoken of the need for flexibility and a bit of common sense.
I am already spoken of my concern about the referrals of our letters to the executive agency. If the Minister saw the volume of cases that come across all our desks—I


assume that it is all 651 desks—he would see the common thread of that demand for flexibility. We could all quote dozens of agencies, all mirror images of each other, and all the tales of misery and woe. This should not be overstated or said glibly, but, in letters and face to face, people tell us that they have never been so distraught and despondent and they feel like giving up jobs. They even talk about suicide. The reason for all this misery is not financial but the children, and the emotional link with them.
All hon. Members who have spoken have referred to those who are being chased. I heard the Minister say on television some weeks ago—he may have changed his view now, and I hope that he has—that there was no truth in the allegation that the CSA was chasing those most easily chased. I should like an answer on that because it seems that those most easily fingered are the ones getting fingered. That is fairly common; it is not unique to the CSA. For example, I know that the only performance measurement for the new PACT teams in the Department of Employment, which assist in the employment of disabled people, is volume of cases. Therefore, they tend to go for cases that are most easily chased. The same principle is being applied here.
There are several common threads, of which the first is inflexibility. Property and discharged debts are not taken into account when an assessment is made. The second problem is access, when estranged couples live many miles apart. If this policy is about building family ties and making parents take responsibility for their children, why deny fathers or mothers the money that it takes to give them access to children who live many miles away? That is happening in many cases.
Another factor that has not been taken into account is second families. Many people who have come to my surgery have said that they cannot provide properly for their second families. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) made a valid point for his constituency, although not for mine, when he said that the people coming to him are Conservative voters. If I were sitting in the Minister's position, I would think that it was bad politics to pursue the policy in that way, because the people whom he is most likely to damage are those who are most likely to support him. Not only is the whole scheme fundamentally flawed but the Minister is targeting his own people. Let me assure him that they are fast moving over to our side of the argument.
We have all pleaded not for the principle to be done away with but for an amendment to the Act to make it work more sensibly. The Government have taken a very good principle and discredited it.

Mr. Adam Ingram: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) on obtaining this debate. I also congratulate him on his appointment to the Public Accounts Committee. His speech tonight showed why he was given that appointment and I am sure that he will prove to be a valuable member of the Committee.
We cannot doubt the importance of the issue raised by my hon. Friend. It is unlikely that any hon. Member—even the Prime Minister—has not received representations on the subject. It is probable that all those representations

have been critical of the Child Support Act, and, in opening the debate, my hon. Friend articulated those criticisms accurately.
In his inimitable way, my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) spelt out what he knew to be happening to his constituents, from his experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) re-emphasised many of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East. I am almost inclined to call the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) an hon. Friend tonight, but if I were to go through the litany of all the Conservative Members who have criticised the Act, we should be short of time—even with an hour and a half. I shall confine myself to saying that all the Back-Bench contributions have restated many of the trenchant criticisms made of the legislation since its enactment.
I am sure that the nation will not be listening now, in the wee small hours; however, what has been said in the debate so far—and, more important, what the Minister will say later—will be scrutinised carefully by all the families and individuals who have been adversely affected by the Act. We must all remember the people—many of them on low incomes, with high outgoings—who have been asked to pay under the provisions of the Act.
As I have said, hon. Members have made trenchant criticisms of the Act and it has been subject to many detailed criticisms in the House and elsewhere. No one is arguing that its underlying principles are unsound. No one is arguing that there is no need for absent parents—to use the terminology used by the agency—to contribute to the upkeep of their children. No one is arguing that those absent parents should be allowed to walk away from their responsibilities.
What is being said—the Government appear not to be listening—is that the application of the Child Support Act is too inflexible and rigid. It does not take proper account of the impact of the high assessments on absent parents, many of whom care deeply about the children from whom they are separated. Perhaps we could change the terminology to "separated parents" rather than "absent parents"—the current language deeply hurts many parents who contribute to families with whom they are no longer involved. The term "absent parent" is a form of criticism which is not justified.
During Social Security questions on 6 December, the Under-Secretary of State, replying to one of his hon. Friends—incidentally another who was critical of the Act —said:
Today has been a good day for the Child Support Agency".
—[Official Report, 6 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 12.]
Clearly, he thought that the agency had been given an early Christmas present. I ask him, in his reply, to elaborate on what he meant by that statement. Why was 6 December a good day for the Child Support Agency?
One interpretation placed on his statement was that he was overjoyed by the conclusions and recommendations of the Select Committee on Social Security and that somehow he had been let off the hook. Was he really implying that nothing substantial needed to be done to amend the working of the Act? If that is what he was saying, it will be a great disappointment to his hon. Friends who are looking for quick action from the Government.
I am sure that the many thousands of complainants who have been subjected to the workings of the Act will not share his joy, either on 6 December or subsequently. They


will not claim that it was a good day for them. It will not do for the Minister to seek to sweep away the many criticisms of the Act in such a flippant and complacent way.
It is interesting to note that in a written answer, also on 6 December, the Minister said:
The Child Support Agency is still very new, but it has made a determined start on its important task of ensuring that more children receive more maintenance, more reliably."—[Official Report, 6 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 108.]
I am sure that everyone agrees that the agency has made a determined start. If it had not made such a determined start, I do not think that the debate would be taking place. Is the Minister really claiming that more children receive more maintenance, more reliably, because of the Act? Where is the evidence for that? Surely it would have been more honest for the Minister to say that it will be the Treasury that will receive more money more quickly, not the children.
Mention has been made of the findings and recommendations of the Select Committee. Time does not permit me to go into the details of those recommendations. I have no doubt that the House will return to that report at a later stage. The debate will not go away after tonight. The Committee's recommendations are to be welcomed. They are a useful beginning on which to base subsequent amendments to the Act. I do not think that I will offend my hon. Friends who served on the Committee if I say that although the report is a useful beginning, it does not go far enough. More needs to be done if we are to bring about meaningful and acceptable changes to the legislation. What must be recognised is that the responsibility for change lies with the Government, not the Select Committee. It will not do for the Government to pick up and implement only the less radical options in the Select Committee report. They must look beyond the report.
If the Minister really believes that children will receive more maintenance, more reliably, he must change the Act to introduce a disregard for parents with care so that the children of parents on income support receive some of the cash from the increased maintenance obtained from the separated parent.
Do the Government mean to take account of the fundamental criticisms that have been made of the Act on both sides of the House about, for example the need for transitional payment arrangements and clean break settlements? I want to draw the attention of the House to the Government's Green Paper on the new divorce procedures. Paragraph 7.31, under the heading "How would the Child Support Agency and mediation fit together?" says:
The Child Support Act will considerably simplify the calculation of child maintenance because the same formula for assessment is used in all cases. The formula takes account of each parent's income and essential outgoings at the time of assessment and, because it deals with the financial consequences of any property transfer, takes account of the practical outcome of 'clean break' settlements.
I am not sure that the Government know what is going on. One document says that clean break settlements are taken into account, whereas the Minister welcomed the fact that the Select Committee said that an easy solution could not be found to clean break settlements. Will the Minister explain that contradiction?
I was going through a list of the fundamental criticisms that have been made of the Act. Other areas that hon. Members have asked to be taken into account, on the basis of representations from constituents, include travel to work

costs, travel for access to children costs, costs of looking after children during holidays and at weekends and, at this time of the year, the additional cost of Christmas and presents for the children.
If the Government are serious about taking those issues on board, they must build into the assessment process a more flexible approach by introducing a new system that allows discretion to review decisions by officers and, within a reformed appeals system, to grant a departure from the standard financial formula. I am sure that the Minister is only too well aware that the Child Support Agency has been re-christened the "Treasury Support Agency". That phrase will continue to haunt him and the Government until something substantial is done about it.
As we are at Christmas time, when financial pressures are at their greatest on all families, the best Christmas present that the Minister can give to children in families affected by the Act is a commitment to their parents to undertake serious consideration of the points so eloquently argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East. Nothing less will do.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I begin by echoing the congratulations of all Members who have spoken to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) on securing this debate and I thank him for the way in which he put his points. No lack of concern was shown by him or by any of the hon. Members who have spoken, and I appreciate how they have all put their cases in a variety of different styles, reflecting the worries that they have experienced. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) for his contribution.
All hon. Members have made a number of valuable comments, to which I shall come shortly. First, I will say a few words about some of the fundamental principles of the scheme, to which everyone who has spoken in the debate has signed up, although what they have said has sometimes belied that. Those principles also have the unequivocal support of the Select Committee on Social Security. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) is right. The day in question was devoted to social security questions; it was also the day of the report's publication. The significance of that was simply that a number of the criticisms directed at the Child Support Agency, which have been specifically raised again tonight, were dealt with by the Select Committee. I note what the hon. Gentleman said, but, because the Select Committee did not back some of those criticisms, he seems to want to pick and choose what the Select Committee said and did. I shall deal with all the Select Committee's criticisms and recommendations. I accept what it said it terms of showing us some of the directions in which it would like to go in the future, but some specific points of principle must then be carried through into action and legislation to see the consequences, to which the Committee also referred.
Some of the issues mentioned tonight and the criticisms made outside do not take that step. They pay lip service to the principles, but where the principles bite it is a different matter. That is a hard issue and I shall try to deal with its nub as best I can.
The main aim of the Child Support Agency is to obtain more maintenance more reliably for more children and improve on a discretionary court-based system that had


failed to stem a decline in the payment of maintenance. The scheme is designed to ensure that, where they can afford to do so, parents take responsibility for maintaining their own children. It is not right that taxpayers, many of whom are bringing up children of their own, should be asked to foot the bill.
The principle, which is not new, was strongly endorsed by the Select Committee, and widely welcomed by Members of all parties and by the relevant lobby groups when the child support proposals were first discussed in 1990. The need for a change from the previous system was adequately illustrated by the fact that, before 1991, fewer than one third of lone parents received maintenance from the absent parent. By 1997, our aim is to have increased that proportion to half.
That is how more children will receive more maintenance, more reliably. Research shows that many lone parents currently receiving income support want to enter employment.

Mr. Ingram: How many more children will receive how much more money?

Mr. Burt: We estimate that maintenance was not previously paid in 50 per cent. of current CSA cases. We believe that proportion will be higher by the end of the year —roughly 600,000 of the 1 million cases that the agency will have taken on. That is quite an improvement.

Mr. Alun Michael: For the Treasury?

Mr. Burt: I will deal with the Treasury in a moment.
Recently, the CSA received much coverage in the press, as it did in the business of the House. Much of the media coverage was less than even handed, with the majority of commentators concentrating on the plight of absent parents. Little attention is paid to the substantial benefits for children derived from regular maintenance payments. I am grateful to the Social Security Select Committee for highlighting that particular point.
We always knew, and made no secret of the fact, that the new scheme was expected to increase the amount of maintenance paid by absent parents. That was made clear in the White Paper, in debates on the Child Support Act 1991 and regulations and on numerous other occasions —and that point was endorsed by the Select Committee, which concluded that it is right for the Government to increase the level of financial support paid in respect of children.
We realised that absent parents would express concern about the amounts that they would be required to pay—and we are seeing that concern as the agency's assessments begin to take effect. I emphasise, however, that although absent parents are asked to pay more, many parents with care are now receiving realistic amounts of maintenance for the first time.
A point often overlooked is that many of those absent parents, albeit often unknowingly, made settlements that involved any maintenance that they paid being supplemented by the taxpayer. It is clearly desirable that those absent parents who can afford to do so should make a more realistic contribution towards the cost of maintaining their children and relieve the taxpayer of an unnecessary burden. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members support that

view. It is only to be expected that some absent parents who in the past paid little or no child maintenance will not welcome being made to pay more.
The amount of maintenance is determined by a formula that was extensively discussed inside and outside Parliament and put into legislation. The purpose of the standard formula is to help eradicate many of the inconsistencies that prevailed under the discretionary court system. I am pleased that the Select Committee remains convinced that a formula-based approach that will produce consistent results is the right one.
An important point invariably overlooked by the media is that the formula ensures that both parents, where they can afford to do so, contribute to the maintenance of their child and that both parents are subject to the formula calculation, if they have sufficient income. To that end, the formula is redressing the balance between the relative incomes of parents with care and absent parents.
Incidentally, the terminology is not meant to be in any way critical. It has been around for five years and merely differentiates between the parent with physical care of the child the majority of the time and the parent who is physically absent the majority of the time. The word "absent" does not mean errant and should not be taken to mean that.
All too often in the past, parents with care lived. at benefit levels while absent parents were able to remain comparatively better off. It is significant that more than 96 per cent. of cases currently on the agency's books concern parents with care and children with benefit. Not one hon. Member who spoke tonight mentioned that in almost every absent parent case cited it is highly likely that the parent with care is on benefit. It is worth emphasising that the majority of absent parents will be left with 70 to 85 per cent. of their net income after paying maintenance, and those with low incomes will usually be left with an even higher percentage.
I am glad to say that we are now seeing some sections of the media beginning to explore the other side of the equation and present a more balanced picture so that the public can see some of the true benefits to children that are being derived from the scheme. I hope that others will follow suit.
I recognise that, despite support for the principle, people have genuine concerns about how the detail of the scheme has affected them. I have undertaken to examine those concerns—as have my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State—and I am closely examining the specific recommendations of the Select Committee. However, I share the Committee's concerns and in my deliberations I shall be weighing carefully the potential gains to absent parents against any adverse effects on parents with care. I will not delay in my considerations. I am treating the matter with urgency, but I will not allow myself to be railroaded into hasty decisions.
I shall deal with some of the specific issues that have been raised and start at the heart of the matter. It is important that I refer to the Select Committee's work. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Committee's report deal with basic issues. I shall read from the report because the issues are important. The report states:
In our previous reports we stated our belief that the system of maintenance for children was long overdue for improvement. We continue to take the view that it is right that parents of children should provide realistic financial support for their children wherever possible, and we also consider it right that the


costs to the taxpayer, which may be caused when families split leaving one partner to bring up children on a low income, should be reduced where possible.
That is the view, not of the Government, but of the Select Committee. It recognised the taxpayer's position. The report continued:
The aim of the Child Support Act was to increase the level of child maintenance paid by parents, and it is to a degree inevitable that there will be protests from those who are asked to contribute more. While we place on record our immediate concerns about certain aspects of the operation of the new child support arrangements in this report, it is notable that a very large group has been left almost unheard in the present debate"—
and in tonight's. The report continued:
A small proportion of the letters we received came from women who supported the objectives of the Act. One woman wrote:
'As a single mother who receives no maintenance from the father of her child I was pleased and relieved when the Child Support Agency was set up. I am at present living on Income Support after having to give up work when my son was born because I could not afford child care. I thought the CSA would ensure that I received enough maintenance to enable me to afford the child care I need for my pre-school child so that I could return to work'.
Another woman asked us not to be unduly influenced by the representations of one group:
'Please don't allow the well-orchestrated babble of complaints from aggrieved men to persuade you that the parent who leaves his (or her) children is entitled to turn his (or her) back on them.'.
We have kept these views in mind during our short inquiry.
We have talked at length about real people and I accept that hon. Members have made their points firmly and raised real cases, but there is another side to the coin to which they have rarely turned their minds tonight. The members of the Select Committee did not turn their minds from that side of the argument, and the Government have not done so either.

Mr. Mudie: Does the Minister agree that the Select Committee positively recommended changes to everything but the clean-break settlement? Despite the fact that the Minister has plucked those two paragraphs from the report, the Select Committee—with the exception of one Labour Member—voted solidly for changes in everything other than the clean-break settlement.

Mr. Burt: I shall come to that, and I have plucked out more paragraphs from the report. The Select Committee certainly made recommendations that I have undertaken to consider. However, the Select Committee has referred not to fundamental issues of principle, but to amendments to the basic structure of the Act that they supported. I am not certain that it necessarily follows from everything that hon. Members have said tonight that they understand how the principles apply and the fact that they will cause some degree of upset as they begin to work.
I have a quote from a woman who was not interviewed for the "World in Action" programme, but who put her case well to a journalist from The Sunday Times. She said:
In the past, when I was working and desperate for money, the courts used to listen to the fathers' excuses about why they couldn't afford to pay, and women got a pittance. The CSA seems like a good thing, and I just wish it had been there for me.
[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) is laughing. I did not laugh at the stories told by Labour Members tonight about the real concerns of some of their constituents. I do not expect them to laugh when they hear about the other side of the coin, which is all too rarely put. We must not be nostalgic for what the court system was—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central asks me to reveal a particular name. I

will not do so, but if he looks atThe Sunday Times of 21 November he will see the article written by Liz Lightfoot about the "World in Action" programme in which she gives names.
Hon. Members tonight again raised the question of targeting payers. I have to say that it is not correct to allege that the agency is concentrating on absent parents who are already paying maintenance, to the exclusion of others. We have always made it clear that all types of case will be dealt with. In fact, in its first year the agency will have devoted considerable effort to cases where little or no maintenance has been paid in the past.
The agency has also had considerable early success in finding missing absent parents—those parents who have shirked their responsibilities and, in many cases, disappeared without trace. In the cases completed so far, there is a 90 per cent. success record in tracing those difficult cases which in the past would simply have disappeared. Again, that fact is not given much prominence.
This year the agency expects to deal with just over 1 million cases, of which almost 640,000 will involve absent parents who do not currently pay any maintenance. It is so important to get the balance right. I recognise the concern about the take-on of cases where people are already paying. However, other cases are being taken on and I hope that hon. Members recognise that.
The complaint was made again tonight that the CSA benefits only the Treasury. I see nothing wrong with the allegation that a sizeable proportion of the maintenance will relieve the burden on the taxpayer. The question that we should ask is not whether we should have introduced an Act to save the taxpayer money, but whether the taxpayer should have been involved in the first place. Where the absent parent can afford to pay, the answer must be no.
That principle was strongly endorsed in the report of the Social Security Select Committee, which reaffirmed that one of the main driving forces behind the reform of the child maintenance system was to return financial responsibility for children from the social security system to absent parents. Again, if we believe in the principle, we have to believe in the action that will put the principle into practice. I am not entirely certain that the House is, as yet, prepared to accept that.
I quote again from the Select Committee report. Paragraph 18 states:
A large part of the public debate about the Child Support Agency has centred on the accusation that it was picking unfairly on 'soft targets', that is, those absent parents who were already making maintenance payments. Behind this accusation has been an allegation that the Agency's work is governed by the requirement to make substantial savings in the social security budget. We believe this objective to be an important one. The Committee believes that taxpayers have for too long been asked, in effect, to pick up maintenance bills that should have been met by absent parents.
The committee read the letters sent to it and understood the feelings behind them, but it still backed the principle that this House previously endorsed—that the taxpayer has an interest and that it is legitimate for the agency to reflect that and to do something about it. I believe that hon. Members should do the same.
The hon. Member for Leeds, East referred to the closing the gap initiative. It was always expected that there would be a gradual build-up in performance as the agency is a new organisation operating new legislation and procedures with new staff. We were also aware that the level of


information needed before an assessment could be completed meant that there would be a period of time between the issue of an application form and the completion of an assessment. Nevertheless, at the end of June the agency concluded that the numbers of cases being cleared were relatively low and inconsistent with the planned six to 12 weeks clearance time for straightforward cases. It therefore decided to use its locally based staff to deal with the early stages of the processing of applications where the parent with care was claiming or receiving income support.
That exercise, the transfer of work between agency centres and the field, with the resulting amendments to procedures, became known as the closing the gap project. The project was also charged with considering any procedural simplifications for the agency which would speed up the processing of cases. It should be remembered that the speeding up of the process enables the parent caring for the child to receive money earlier.
The closing the gap project has made a big impact on agency performance. In the four months to the end of October, the agency's productivity increased significantly as a result of that initiative. In the second quarter of the financial year, by comparison with the first, agency staff issued two and a half times as many application forms and more than three times as many maintenance inquiry forms to absent parents and completed eight times as many assessments.
The oft-quoted document that the hon. Gentleman mentioned refers to the view of one member of staff who was clearly unprepared for major change. The great majority of the agency's staff welcomed the changes brought about by the closing the gap project. They had always wanted to be more involved in the basic processing,

and the project gave them the opportunity. They have made a significant contribution to the big increase in productivity that has been achieved as a result of the initiative.
I would need an hour to say all that I have to say, but, alas, I do not have that amount of time. A common concern raised by hon. Members tonight has been raised by others, including the Select Committee, and that relates to the assessment formula and how it takes account of specific expenses, such as existing debts or the cost of travel to work and contact with children. We believe that the formula makes provision for essential living expenses and, additionally, absent parents are left with a significant proportion of their net income after paying maintenance.
We do not think it right to allow for specific expenses in the formula, as that gives them precedence over the basic needs of the children. The Select Committee correctly realised that to make provision for a shopping list of essential expenses would push child maintenance further and further down the priority order. The ultimate result would be a return to the unrealistically low sums that were common under the previous system.
I recognise that the Select Committee, in endorsing the principles behind the agency, made recommendations on phasing and on trying to ensure that protected income would be larger to cover some of the issues raised by hon. Members tonight. We have those matters very much in mind. I cannot tell the House tonight what conclusion we have come to, but I hope that some of the things that I have said tonight will be helpful.
I recognise the pain that hon. Members experience when they speak to their constituents. I have the same experience with my own constituents. We will consider carefully what is to be done. We should not underestimate the difficulties of the previous system, the decline in the payment of maintenance and the failure to provide decent maintenance for many children—

In accordance with Mr. Speaker's ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.

Orders of the Day — Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Julian Brazier: I am most grateful for this opportunity to debate the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), who have joined me to speak in the debate, and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who has chosen to reply to the debate in person at this rather unearthly hour.
The Government have embarked on a remarkable package of reforms to the criminal justice system. One might even describe it as the crime management system. The Home Secretary's 27-point plan for the criminal justice system will make an enormous difference and involve a great deal of legislation.
At the same time, we have two different sets of proposals for the police, one stemming from the Sheehy report, which is in modified form, and one coming in the police White Paper, and measures that apply to the relationship between the public and the forces of law and order, ranging from improvements to the special constabulary through to greater emphasis on neighbourhood watch schemes and witness protection schemes.
Curiously, the one part of the crime management system that has been almost entirely exempted from that process is the CPS. The one major change that it has undergone has been a reduction in the number of areas, the reasons for which are not immediately obvious.
If just one link in a chain is left largely unchanged when the others are being greatly altered, it would be reasonable to suppose that that one link was the strongest link. In fact, I shall argue tonight that it is by far and away the weakest link. I do not want to dwell on the various personal attacks that have been made on the Director of Public Prosecutions or, indeed, on the wider attacks that have been made from time to time on individual Crown prosecutors. They form no part of my case. I want to focus on the facts.
Since the establishment of the CPS in 1985, crime of all types has risen dramatically, according to the official figures. The British crime survey, which is based on opinion polling, suggests that the numbers of offences in certain categories of crime against property, including burglary and offences involving motor cars, have risen slightly faster than the official figures suggest. The numbers in other categories have risen less quickly.
Over the seven years from 1985 to 1992, the police have succeeded in clearing up more offences. The number of notifiable offences cleared up has risen from 1·1 million to 1·39 million—an increase of one quarter—yet the number of convictions for indictable offences has fallen by 9 per cent., from 362,000 to 339,000. At the same time, the success rate in prosecutions for indictable offences has fallen from 96 per cent. in the last year before the CPS came into operation to just over 90 per cent. last year. That is according not to the CPS figures but to the figures from the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department, which have a more consistent basis. They are figures provided by the Library, based on the Government's figures.
Those figures, which are poor in themselves, understate the grave deterioration in the prosecution service. In that period, plea bargaining has steadily extended so that many prosecutions have been secured at the price of accepting a

lower charge. Research by several neutral bodies has confirmed at the qualitative level that the figures correctly show a marked deterioration in the service. I shall mention just two bodies. In 1987, just after the CPS came into operation, the National Audit Office did a survey of, among others, judges, magistrates and clerks to justices of the peace. That survey suggested that far more people thought that the service had got worse than thought that it had got better.
Just two years ago, Home Affairs Select Commmittee investigations found quote after quote from almost every possible agency. People felt that the CPS was inferior to the old system in which the police were in charge of prosecutions. Quotes were obtained from magistrates, barristers and policemen. The chairman of the Magistrates Association said that he
could not think of a single good thing
that had been done for justice as a result of the introduction of the CPS. At the same time, costs have spiralled. The Comptroller and Auditor General's review of the Crown Prosecution Service in 1989 said:
In August 1986, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office attempted to compare the cost of the CPS with the cost of the previous regime. They estimated broadly that the old arrangements would have cost £70 million for 1987–88 as against estimated expenditure of £110 million for the Service. But they accepted that this might not take full account of the costs of accommodation and general admistration, and concluded that the difference in costs was due mainly to the increase in staff numbers. The actual cost of the Service in 1987–88 was £134 million.
By 1991–92—remember that this is a period of extremely low inflation—while the service had continued to deteriorate, total expenditure had reached £226·15 million. Even if one makes the generous assumption that the whole of the initial increase was due to accounting changes for accommodation and so on, the service's costs had doubled. It did not stop there. Costs have continued to rise sharply.
In the current year alone, in my county of Kent, new arrangements for the handling of paperwork will cost an extra £750,000 this year, with a continuing charge of £500,000 a year for paperwork that was wholly unnecessary before the CPS came into being. Delays in major criminal cases result in witnesses no longer being able to recall what happened, reducing the chances of a successful prosecution being made; equally, there are delays at the bottom end of the scale. I have spent much time talking to my local police. Indeed, I was out in a police car all night last month.

Mr. Alun Michael: Was the hon. Gentleman in the cells?

Mr. Brazier: I was a voluntary visitor to the cells. Policemen have told me time and again that, in the past, they could arrest someone for committing a minor offence —for example, shoplifting—and, because the paperwork involved was minimal, if there was no queue in the magistrates court a case could sometimes be completely cleared through to sentence within 24 hours. Simply getting the file prepared and processed by the CPS takes a minimum of a fortnight, with all the costs that that entails.
The result is demoralisation of policemen, who see cases being dropped, experience delays and increasing costs and spend hour after hour with earphones on their


heads summarising cases for the CPS. That would not be necessary if they were prosecuting cases themselves and it would be far less bureaucratic.
I do not want to quote the wretched forms that are pouring increasingly out of the DPP's office, imposing increasing burdens on the police force. The CPS is vastly more expensive than the previous arrangements. Long delays and a huge increase in paperwork are involved—an increase that the PA study into police paperwork was not allowed to consider. Its terms of reference were specifically confined to areas under the control of the police, although it was able to recommend better co-ordination and regular reviews of the relationship between the police and the CPS. Policemen tell me that the CPS is the biggest single factor accounting for the fall in morale among policemen, not only in my area but in others.
I am not suggesting that we need improved practice in the CPS, although obvious examples of where improvements need to be made can be given. Policemen in my constituency are full of praise for local Crown prosecutors. In the past six months, only two cases that local police would have liked to proceed with were dropped, and both were relatively minor. The point that the police make to me again and again is that the system is profoundly wrong and that where Crown prosecutors are doing a good job they are doing it in spite of the system, not because of it.
The system has no objectives to encourage Crown prosecutors to take up difficult cases where they believe defendants to be guilty but where there is a real chance of losing. The pursuit of such cases is important not only to victims but to the public's perception of justice being done. The system does not have any penalty for dropping such cases. Indeed, it rewards the cautious Crown prosecutor because he appears to get a better result by dodging the more difficult cases. That problem arises under any system in which there is divided responsibility, as there is in the present system. The police complain about the CPS and the CPS complain about the police. It is not clear who is responsible if a case is not successful.
There is another aspect that is undervalued and missed —I say that with the greatest respect to the majority of hon. Members in the Chamber at the moment, who are lawyers. Of the intelligent and articulate complaints made against the CPS, the one that is missed is the damage that the service is doing to the individual policeman by removing the vital opportunity for training as a witness which the prosecution of minor cases provided for young policemen.
In the old days, policemen who prosecuted in shoplifting cases gained experience in the court room by being cross-examined in difficult circumstances. I am now told that, all too often, when policemen without that experience are witnesses in major criminal cases in the Crown court, they are unable to make a convincing case compared with their peers of 10 years ago.
In practice, policemen are not released back on the beat. As there is no longer a policeman present to prosecute each case, magistrates have had to insist that one is present as a security guard, so we are paying twice—once for the chap who is prosecuting and once for the policeman merely providing security in the court. From a management angle —for my sins, I was a management consultant—the point runs even deeper. If a policeman has had experience of having to frame a case before magistrates, that in itself will

have knock-on effects on his practice out there, at the sharp end. By knowing exactly how one has to present a case and what arguments will or will not cut any ice in court, and from gathering evidence and undertaking the other procedures involved in down-to-earth policing, a policeman is likely to be that much sharper on the beat.
Surely we are not naive enough to believe that policing is simply about putting thousands of extra people back on the beat. We do not want to return to the 1930s when there were three Royal Commissions on policing in three years and when there were 120,000 uneducated policemen on the beat, marching up and down looking for criminals. Policing is about skills and quality. It has repeatedly been stressed to me—by detectives, funnily enough—that the experience gained by prosecuting minor cases in magistrates courts was vital in teaching policemen about their wider duties.
My next objection is that the source of policy formulation is profoundly confused. Other hon. Members wish to intervene so I shall not elaborate too much, but I cite one particular example. The recent case of Regina v. Fergus, which was a matter of mistaken identity, has led to the director of prosecutions in London issuing new guidelines on witness material. The guidelines are confusing in any event because they conflict with an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeal on the protection of people who are subsequently acquitted. That is a detail, but the key point is that the director of prosecutions in London has issued fresh guidelines that are out of line with those in the rest of the country.
The only argument for having a centralised service that seemed to carry any weight was that it would produce uniform standards. If there are no uniform standards, and if individual regional directors can set their own rules—in this case, one that involves a great deal of extra work—even that argument falls.
What should we conclude from the original reasons for setting up the CPS? I believe that they boil down to three points, one of which is mistaken, one of which is pernicious and the third of which holds some water but its scope has been taken too wide. The mistaken argument is that an independent CPS enhances the credibility of the prosecuting authority because people believe that cases rest on more than the police having it in for someone or fitting someone up.
It must be said that, while public confidence in the police has declined in the past few years—a recent Reader's Digest survey suggested that it is now down to 73 per cent.—confidence in the criminal justice system has also plummeted and, indeed, it now stands at below 50 per cent. in the courts. More important, the fact that the successful prosecution rate has fallen even though large numbers of cases have been dropped since the introduction of the CPS illustrates that that argument simply does not hold water.
The second argument, which I believe to be utterly pernicious, is that the CPS provides a safety net against miscarriages of justice. As an old-fashioned Tory, I believe that argument to be constitutionally monstrous. Let us look at the figures. In the second quarter of this year, 43,000 cases were discontinued—just over half were discontinued on evidential grounds. The second largest category—almost a third of the total, or more than 12,000 cases—were discontinued in the so-called public interest. What kind of philosophy of justice says that bureaucrats operating in secrecy behind closed doors should be allowed


to discontinue vast numbers of cases in the public interest? Twelve thousand victims out there have been told that their cases have been discontinued in the public interest, without any public debate. If a case is to be discontinued—unless that happens in the most exceptional circumstances—it should be discontinued either as a result of committal proceedings, which are in the open, or at a trial, where the judge has the power to scrub a case as early as he wants to do so.
The third argument—the argument that convinces me that there is a case for having independent prosecution in some areas—is the resources argument. Many of the cases that used to start—and, in the case of the Serious Fraud Office, continue to start—cost absurd sums. Public money could be saved if expensive cases unlikely to succeed could be called off at an early stage. It is surely manifestly clear that we are talking not about summary or even hybrid offences but about major criminal cases.
That brings me to my four conclusions. First, I recommend that the prosecution of summary and hybrid offences should be returned to the police—simply given back to the old system. That would be massively cheaper and massively faster. Moreover, and eminently, it would restore that vital training function to the police in the case of minor cases while allowing them to appoint whatever solicitors they chose for cases that were on the borderline or too complicated for them to follow themselves.
Let me give a little plug to Christopher Frazer's excellent CPS pamphlet "Privatise the Prosecutors", in which I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth had a hand. Christopher Frazer recommends an elaborate scheme for privatising the CPS on a local basis, basically arguing that the DPP should appoint local solicitors to carry out prosecutions in individual areas. Their contracts should be renewable every few years and the firms in question should not be allowed to take on defence work. That is a splendid suggestion, subject to the important condition that I mentioned, which is that I do not think that it should extend to summary and hybrid cases.
My third recommendation is that major policy areas should be the responsibility of the DPP, answerable to the Attorney-General, alone. I would envisage the regional structure disappearing anyway. The idea that a major new demand can suddenly be imposed locally without clearance from the centre is absolutely wrong.
The fourth recommendation applies to whatever system of prosecution we have. Tapes play an important part under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—an Act with which I have a lot of difficulty—and their use is widely supported, at least in major criminal cases. The summaries of those tapes, which create so much paperwork for the police, should be made by the CPS. There is a body of academic evidence suggesting that policemen are the wrong people to make the summaries anyway. They are not trained for it and, more important from my angle as a former management consultant, if the CPS were responsible for the summaries, it would be much less demanding than it is under the present arrangements. I am assured by policemen that that single measure would save vastly more paperwork than the total batch of recommendations that came out of the excellent report on police paperwork.
We are steadily reforming all the links in the chain of the criminal justice system—except the weakest one. I welcome the reforms in the system and in police

relationships with the public. We must tackle the CPS, the weakest link, and I commend my four simple recommendations to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Nigel Evans: This is perhaps the earliest time of day at which I have spoken in a debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on securing this important debate. It occurs at a time when the eyes of the nation are focused on law and order and on the way in which we tackle crime.
I recently held three meetings in my constituency—at Fulwood, Clitheroe and Longridge—on law and order. At them, the voice of the public was as one in wishing the Government to get tougher with criminals and wanting those responsible for crime punished and, where necessary, put behind bars where they could inflict no more misery on society. I was therefore delighted when the Home Secretary announced his 27 points at the Conservative party conference and included them in the Queen's Speech. They fully underlined his commitment to pushing through legislation that will redress the balance in favour of the victim and against the criminal.
For too long, we have been hoodwinked by those who favour leniency and submissiveness in dealing with the part of society that chooses to live outside the law. There is no doubt that the nation wants to see persistent young thugs properly punished, and not sent on holiday jaunts to the Algarve. I was delighted by the recent Home Department pronouncement against such "punishment", especially by local authorities that are for ever saying that they are starved of cash.
People want better support for the victims of crime and new powers to revoke bail for persistent offenders. They also want new prisons that will keep criminals out of the community.
In our battle to beat crime, the Crown Prosecution Service will be called on to take a lead role to ensure that those suspected of offences come before the courts to face their peers. That is the outcome which I seek, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury that, in its current state, the CPS is greatly handicapped in its ability to perform to the highest standards. That is a tragedy, because the service has no shortage of worthwhile work to protect law-abiding citizens from the ravages of thugs, robbers and violent criminals. However, because of the mountain of bureaucracy in which it has become entangled, it seems unable to function to its full potential. In The Guardian last week, a lawyer stated:
We are bombarded with bumf from headquarters. I came thinking I was in Perry Mason and I ended up in 'Yes Minister'.
The cost of this bureaucracy is great. It has created low morale among those in the organisation and tension between them and those who are at the sharp end of law enforcement—the police. That has led to an erosion of public confidence in its ability to protect their interests, and it is costing the taxpayer a great deal of money.
Morale among CPS staff seems to be at an all-time low as, increasingly, they feel that they are being asked to prosecute only in cases in which there is a high probability of winning and dropping those that are more difficult. It is generally accepted that the Crown Prosecution Service will prosecute a case when it feels that it has a more than even chance of winning. However, in the past a Crown Prosecution Service officer working in York was reported as saying that, in reality, the percentage was closer to 70


than to 50. That policy, whether written or implied by the powers in charge, is misguided and dangerous. It will lead, and undoubtedly has led, to guilty people walking away from their crimes without being made to pay for the consequences of their actions.
A senior lawyer in the Crown Prosecution Service, who wished to remain anonymous, wrote in the Daily Mail on Thursday 21 October:
All lawyers need to be willing to fight difficult cases at times and good lawyers can win against all the odds. Unfortunately the CPS gives no encouragement to good lawyers or to courageous prosecuting.
If a prosecutor drops a difficult case then nobody in the CPS criticises him on the grounds that the case could have been won. If he takes one on and wins, nobody praises him.
But if he takes on a difficult case and loses, he could face criticism for accepting a weak case, and knows his career could be affected. So it is simpler and safer to drop a difficult case rather than fight it. And drop them prosecutors do—every day.
That would be a serious indictment whoever levelled it at the CPS, but when one of its own employees does so it becomes a cause for great concern. We cannot afford a system that accepts only cast-iron cases to the exclusion of everything else. The "if in doubt, drop it" mentality has not gone unnoticed by the police or by the public, and it is causing both groups to lose confidence in the CPS.
Too many times, a serious charge has been reduced to secure a conviction, or even dropped altogether. Defence lawyers are quick to take advantage of that weakness, and use it to good effect in protecting their clients' interests. For example, they will often encourage their clients, where possible, to opt for a Crown court trial and the extra costs that that would incur are used as a lever to get the prosecutor to reduce the severity of the charges so that the case may be heard in a magistrates court, which will lower the costs that the CPS will incur.
In other cases, because its desire for a conviction has become so overriding, the CPS has been known to reduce the charges itself before going to court. To many, that may seem good practice, but that is of little consolation to a victim of rape who sees the charge for that serious crime reduced to indecent assault. If convicted in a magistrates court, the perpetrator will receive at most a sentence of six months in prison. There is no recourse for the victim to appeal to the Attorney-General for a more severe sentence to be passed, because the attacker was never tried for the rape. That lack of desire to prosecute is causing concern.
For example, it cannot be right that we ask our policemen to risk their lives daily to protect the public, when in a recent case a policeman who had a knife pulled on him by a drunken driver saw the CPS alter the charge to the offence of carrying a bladed article—an offence not punishable by a prison sentence. Another case reported in The Daily Telegraph on Friday involved a policeman—PC Tony Stallard, with 27 years' service on the beat—who was assaulted by two teenagers whom he approached for stealing pub glasses. After being pushed to the ground and attacked, he was saved from a sustained assault only by two of his fellow officers, who restrained the attackers. Even with that seemingly overwhelming evidence, the CPS dropped the charges and Mr. Stallard has been forced to hire a solicitor and a barrister at a cost of several thousand pounds to mount a civil prosecution.
After the CPS refused to prosecute a man who battered a police officer in Streatham, an inspector wrote:

This type of incident does nothing for the morale of officers who are at the butt end".
In The Times recently, Stephen Wedd, the secretary of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, said that the CPS was now better run, but that
what strikes me as extraordinary is that cases which we as defence solicitors can see are losers—losers for us—the CPS discontinues. They always play safe".
Those are alarming examples, which must eat away at the confidence of police officers in their ability to do the job. I could give many other examples from newspaper articles. The Police Gazette of 15 October reports an attack on an officer that left him with a punctured lung and six broken ribs, yet still the CPS refused to prosecute.
I am aware that the Police Federation has raised the concerns of its members with the Home Secretary, and I trust that the matter will be taken further. In the light of the examples that I have cited—they are by no means isolated —we need to ask ourselves how we can constructively tackle the problems facing the CPS, an organisation which employs more than 2,000 lawyers, 141 legal trainees and more than 4,000 support staff.
To start with, we need to build bridges between the CPS and the lower levels of the police force. A senior officer in my constituency informed me that, although he and the Lancashire constabulary enjoyed a good relationship with the CPS, other police forces reported a great deal of antagonism between the CPS and officers at the grass roots. He claimed that much of that frustration is due to the fact that the police and the CPS have failed to establish a sound channel of communication.
A major source of friction is the number of cases that the CPS decides not to prosecute after the police have handed over their findings. In 1992–93, the CPS decided against prosecuting 193,000 cases—equivalent to one in seven of the completed files referred to it by the police. The 193,000 victims are also important. The number of case dismissals was 20,000 up on the year before. Thousands of officers who worked tirelessly to complete the investigations feel aggrieved by that total and question the motives behind the dismissal of so many cases. Such is their sense of grievance, never mind the feelings of the victims who sit haplessly by, waiting for justice to be done, only to discover at a later date that their cases never reached the courts and their assailants walked free.
The police are already operating a sifting procedure through their increased use of the caution. If the police think that a case has little chance of going far, they caution those charged. In 1992–93, some 41,000 fewer cases were referred to the CPS by the police; the number of completed cases at the magistrates court fell by 36,000 and the number of defendants going to Crown court fell by 9,000. At a time of rising crime, that is not good enough.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury that a review of the working of the CPS would be welcome. I am sure that much of demoralisation suffered by its employees stems from the massive case loads with which they are forced to deal. Defendants wait until the last moment before they change their plea of not guilty, but the work load of the CPS could be reduced if they were encouraged to lodge a plea of guilty at an earlier stage. Of those defendants who elected for jury trial, 82 per cent. pleaded guilty. The majority did so on the day of the trial. We must encourage those who are guilty so to plead at a


much earlier stage in the proceedings. In that way, the time of the police, the CPS, the courts and the witnesses would not be wasted.
The current procedures are a sham. I was in Preston magistrates court the other day when a person changed his plea from not guilty to guilty. Two police officers who had each wasted three hours in the court then had to leave. If that guilty plea had been lodged earlier a lot of wasted time could have been saved. We should consider a system under which discounted sentences could be encouraged if a guilty plea was recorded earlier In the proceedings. That would free tens of thousands of CPS man hours which could be used to deal with more serious cases. That change might offer a new incentive to prosecute difficult cases where the outcome might go either way.
I am seeking not to find scapegoats, but to bring to the attention of the House the problems faced by the CPS. Although I do not believe that those problems could cause the terminal illness of the CPS, they must not be allowed to fester dangerously, as that causes misunderstanding and mistrust. Employees in the CPS are losing confidence in their ability to do their jobs.
I look forward to the report of the CPS into why cases are being dropped—we should have it before Christmas. I hope that it will be able to answer some of the criticisms made of it relating to the number of cases dropped and those in which the charge is reduced. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has said, is all the burgeoning paperwork absolutely necessary to enable the police to conduct their business?
I urge the Attorney-General to take the necessary action to correct the obvious problems. Let us make the system work for the victims; let us put them first, where they belong, and the criminals in the dock, where they belong. Then justice will not only be done, but be seen to be done.

Mr. Roger Evans: One of the more exotic mysteries to which scholarship will, in 100 years, apply itself is how the Government of Baroness Thatcher managed in the 1980s to set up a new nationalised industry in the form of the Crown Prosecution Service, in lieu of a privatised system and one that involved compulsory competitive tendering as a matter of practice throughout the rural counties. How did that extraordinary state of affairs come about? The explanation, inevitably, is that the great and good, in the form of the Philips commission, suggested a scheme, which was transmuted into an even grander scheme by civil servants. That led to the creation of a system designed to implement the abstract idea that, somehow, the last few centuries of our legal history were inadequate because there was no independent prosecutor, independent of the police, applying itself in virtually every case that was dealt with. The difficulty is that when abstract ideas are applied, they do not work in the way intended.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on analysing, in great and devastating detail, the dissatisfaction that is general at the moment, particularly among the police. The problem goes well beyond that. The judiciary, the legal profession and the public at large, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) explained in great detail, are grievously concerned at the present state of affairs.
I commend to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General Mr. Christopher Frazer's recent book

"Privatise the Prosecutors", which analyses the problem in detail and makes a compelling case for urgent change. Let us see why that urgent change is necessary. The idea behind having an independent prosecutor was that the police could not be trusted and that such an independent prosecutor would ensure a uniform and higher standard of decision making in prosecuting and a higher execution in quality of prosecuting. Plainly, that does not happen. Whatever its difficulties, the old system achieved much more public satisfaction.
he first disastrous consequence of the Crown prosecuting system—it is the system that is at fault, not the people who operate it—is demoralisation of the police force. When the two roles of investigating officer and independent prosecuting authority are split, there is an immediate need for communication between the two, which means an explosion of paperwork and, in the inevitable course of the civil service, an extraordinary explosion in the type of forms required.
It is worse than that. PC Dixon, the officer in the case under the old system, had a personal responsibility. He was subject to his supervising officer, but he had to investigate the case, get the evidence together, make sure that there was enough evidence, get his witnesses to court and, if they were simple cases, get them prosecuted himself. He had direct personal responsibility; he was accountable. If he made a mistake, the magistrates would throw the case out, with costs against the police. There was simple accountability, simple responsibility and simple retribution if he got it wrong.
If it were a more complicated case, involving trial on indictment, PC Dixon could go to his own solicitor—that was true in many rural areas, right up to the end of the old system. For example, in Herefordshire, private firms of solicitors did the prosecuting, and they were chosen for their professional qualities and their expertise. The prosecuting solicitor was a prestigious appointment. In the country, provincial firms were anxious to compete to be awarded that task. In other parts of the country, there was an in-house policy prosecuting solicitor. In Gwent and in Gloucestershire, of which I had professional experience many years ago, the system worked well and was effective. The important thing was that even if there was an in-house police solicitor, PC Dixon knew that he was dealing with that solicitor, not with some separate individual force that would override, overturn or ignore his views and not carry out the priorities that he understood.
Since then, there has been a split or division between the police officer in a case and the independent prosecutor. Neither is entirely responsible. The witnesses do not turn up; the evidence is not secured. In simpler cases, the level of expert decision making is in question. It sounds wonderful to have an expert lawyer involved in every case, but that is not how the system works. Relatively junior staff deal with relatively junior police officers, and increasingly—as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury explained—with junior PC Dixons who have not had the experience of being responsible for a case and knowing how to present it. It is no good the Government saying that they want to reduce the amount of paperwork and simplify the obligations of the police unless they deal with the fundamental suggestion that the Crown prosecuting solicitor is an unnecessary shackle and an attack on the integrity of the police, and that he does not help.


It may be said that, in the old days in Bow street magistrates court, quite a lot of policemen were milling about waiting for their cases to come on as each PC Dixon brought his case to be dealt with. Should not those policemen be on the beat, rather than presenting cases in court? That, however, is a superficial argument.
I do not accept for a moment that any time was wasted on that exercise, because it was devoted to ensuring that a case was brought to court, dealt with and disposed of. Nowadays, PC Dixon is wasting very much more time preparing written material for the CPS-or, as has been pointed out, his colleagues are providing the security service in magistrates courts that was taken for granted in the old days. Indeed, at one stage in our history, those courts were known as police courts. There was never any suggestion that there were not enough police officers to ensure that the system operated properly. That arrangement was necessary for the dignity and integrity of the court system, and it was astonishing that it should be removed. This issue matters so much to the morale and effectiveness of our police force that it must be dealt with effectively.
Let me make another point, echoing my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. A very important constitutional issue has been fudged. The older view was that, where there was evidence, there was a duty to prosecute. When the late Mr. Raymond Blackburn—a distinguished former Member of Parliament—went boldly to court to challenge the then policy of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis not to prosecute pornographers in Soho, Lord Denning and the courts made it clear that there was a duty to prosecute. The only exception in the 1960s was a case involving several thousand examples of breaches of food and drugs regulations; someone suggested that it was not necessary to prosecute each and every one.
No one would have doubted, in the whole of our constitutional history—from the Glorious Revolution until the introduction of the CPS—that it was possible for public bodies not to prosecute when there was something of a case. What has happened? To what was the Bill of Rights directed? It forbids the suspending and dispensing of the law of the land in individual cases, but, under new prosecuting guidelines, an elastic and slippery test of the public interest has now been applied. That test enables the CPS to drop the astonishing cases of which my hon. Friends have given details.
In a less happy, honourable and great land than ours, that would have led to corruption and tyranny. In this country, it leads only to inefficiency, unfairness and a sense of public outrage that honourable public servants are behaving in a way that is eccentric and unhelpful.

Mr. Brazier: I shall not go into individual cases, but my hon. Friend must be aware that, in areas where there are racial tensions, if there is any racist aspect of a case that is subsequently dropped—whether the racial group comprises Asians resenting a racial attack by whites, whites resenting an allegedly racial attack by West Indians or others—word starts immediately to spread that the decision was made for racial reasons.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is corroding and corrosive and it undermines public confidence in the administration of the law.
The point that really matters—it is an outrage in our free country—is that decisions whether to prosecute should not be taken, to use pejorative language, by state prosecutors acting in private. That is the behaviour of a Minister of the Interior in a nasty foreign country that does not understand liberty as we have known it since 1688. I am being more generous than my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury in that I think that that system is driven largely by muddle and inefficiency. However, it is wrong in principle and it should stop.
As a member of the Bar, my further professional unhappiness with modern arrangements is that we now have full-time independent Crown prosecutors, which leads to polarisation in the legal profession. The glory of the Bar and of country solicitors was, and is, the fact that they dealt with every case that came to them, whatever the side. A country solicitor could be prosecuting for PC Dixon one day and defending the local villain the next. There was independent professional judgment and solicitors were expected to be fair. Nobody suggested that they would not be fair. Now, we have state prosecutors under siege from public criticism and, the most unattractive feature of the modern legal profession, the type of civil libertarian practitioner who seems to believe that every guilty case is plainly not so. The older system led to higher professional standards and offered openness and opportunities for practitioners to appear for the public.
I must deal with the remedies for this serious and unhappy situation. There is such an accumulation of dissatisfaction that nothing less than severe and serious action is called for urgently. I endorse and welcome what I believe to be the most important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, that the police should be given back their exclusive role of dealing with and prosecuting summary and hybrid offences. If they need legal advice, they can obtain it from private solicitors. If they need more than that, they can, at worst, obtain it from an in-house solicitor. That was the system that created responsibility and direct accountability and promoted standards.
The fundamental mistake in the new system is that decisions on whether to prosecute are taken in private by state prosecutors. A proper sifting system should be open, judicial and public. In our country prior to 1931, a grand jury would have formed a view as to the appropriateness of a prosecution, which is what happens in the United States now. Until 1968, in a trial on indictment, there was no question of involving any paperwork. PC Dixon had to produce each and every relevant witness to tell the justices the story so that they could form a view on whether there was sufficient material to bring a prosecution. There was a judicial determination of whether a case should be dealt with by trial by jury.
In 1967, somebody thought of saving public money —it is always dangerous in the law to reduce standards, allegedly to save money. The idea now is to serve a bundle of statements. The justices have no duty to consider whether there is anything in them. They simply act as a postbag. That is the farce of the modern committal system. All the cases end up going to the Crown court and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley said, making up one's mind at the last possible moment when faced with the ultimate threat of the prison doors is endemic in the criminal world. People will not make up their minds conveniently to suit the police or the prosecution or for the convenience of the courts. Someone like Bill Sykes makes


up his mind at the last possible moment when there is no alternative other than to go to prison. Vast numbers of cases have gone to the Crown court because there is no proper committal system, due to the foolishness of the 1967 legislation which led to the modern system. I do not urge one arrangement or another, but either the magistrates or the Crown court judge should have a preliminary summary sifting process to determine, on express open criteria, whether a case should be allowed to proceed.
One remedy is recommended by Mr. Christopher Frazer in the book that I mentioned. If we must retain an independent Crown prosecutor, he should, at most, be a part-time local solicitor in private practice—somebody of professional distinction who is honoured to be made an important figure in the community. That would deal with the small number of cases in which the police said that they needed legal advice. It would leave it entirely to the police to decide whether they wanted to go to such a local Crown prosecutor or to bring in their own independent solicitor.
As we well know, there are exceptions. The police are shackled with having to use the Crown Prosecution Service. That is not the case for certain Departments which, if they want to prosecute, can go to their own legal advisers. The Government always exclude their servants from the monopoly that they create.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions should return to the traditional role of dealing with a small number of particularly sensitive and important public issues.
The talents of the people who work in the Crown Prosecution Service are being failed by the system. There is a premium on timidity, which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury explained. They would be better off in private practice. As soon as we have a national civil service, with a salary scale applying from one end of the land to another, it is difficult to get people to do the job in inner London, where it is more expensive to live. The system should be ended.
Above all, because of the importance of the morale and effectiveness of the police and of the Government's policies for getting to grips with the problem of rising crime, I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to take urgent and early action to deal with the crisis in the Crown Prosecution Service, which should never have been set up as it was. The country will be satisfied only when it is abolished—and the sooner, the better.

Mr. Alun Michael: I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on achieving this debate and starting a stimulating discussion, to which I hope to add.
The hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the Crown Prosecution Service were curious because he sought to excuse the Government's appalling failure to tackle crime while identifying real concern about the failure of the Crown Prosecution Service. Those failures must be seen against the background of the criminal justice system as a whole. He described the Home Secretary as the author of a remarkable package on crime. The package is remarkable mainly in its failure to tackle crime and the causes of crime. The so-called "27-point plan" exposed in parliamentary questions lacks in detail, is short on time scale, limited in

scope, lacks a strategy for crime prevention and reform, and, in the past fortnight, has been exposed by the Budget figures as lacking cash and resources.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) showed a similar tendency to ignore the Government's general failure on crime while criticising the Crown Prosecution Service as though its failures had nothing to do with Conservative policies. He referred to late pleas entered by defendants. There are ways in which the whole system could be streamlined and timetabled if only Ministers would listen to the advice that has been offered to them in recent years and particularly in recent months.
I am appalled to learn that civil servants are saying that the Criminal Justice Bill, which we shall debate shortly, is full and that inter-agency advice from bodies like the working group on pre-trial issues is to be ignored. That should be of concern to Members on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) was devastating in his criticism of Baroness Thatcher's Government and the demoralisation of police and others in the criminal justice system that has developed during the past 14 years, but restrained himself from putting blame on the shoulders of Ministers who are still in office. I sympathise with his point about the contribution of police officers in courts under the previous system. From my experience as a juvenile court magistrate in particular, I can say that removing PC Ron Ashe from Cardiff juvenile court was the most disastrous decision in juvenile justice that I have encountered.
I ask the hon. Member for Monmouth to keep an eye on the Home Secretary's tendency to undervalue the skills of police officers in a range of other duties and the dangers inherent in the forthcoming Magistrates Courts and Police Bill. The Home Secretary, in common with his predecessor, wants to be the sort of nasty Minister for the interior that the hon. Member for Monmouth rightly scorned. I ask only that he balances his views.
The hon. Member for Monmouth should acknowledge that the accumulation of dissatisfaction with the Crown Prosecution Service that he rightly identified is directed equally and with similar passion at other elements of the criminal justice system. There is no doubt that the public have lost confidence in that system. The fact that someone is punished by a court in only one crime in 50 is itself an incredible indictment of the Government's failure to deal with crime and its causes.
This debate addresses the specific problem of the CPS's failure to deliver the goods, but Ministers should recognise that that is only one aspect of a general failure.

Mr. Brazier: I find myself listening to the hon. Gentleman's remarks with increasing disbelief. He is taking the debate extremely wide with a series of attacks on the Government, but he has not made one constructive policy suggestion. I hope that he will do so shortly.

Mr. Michael: That is a scurrilous remark and untrue. Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Canterbury, took the debate well wide of the CPS. I have already made a significant constructive contribution, in saying that advice from inter-agency bodies such as the working party that I mentioned—to which, apparently, Ministers and civil servants are not prepared to listen—should be embodied in the criminal justice legislation that will come before the House shortly. That would assist the


CPS, courts and criminal justice system generally. If the hon. Member for Canterbury thinks that I am not making constructive points, he does not understand the topic that he raised.
Ministers continually tinker with the wrong parts of the system and the way in which prosecutions are brought in particular. We expect this week the appearance of the Magistrates Courts and Police Bill, which is based on an ill-judged White Paper and will reduce accountability and the local nature of police forces. The Home Secretary continually offers fancy words and yet more legislation, when he would be better occupied preventing and reducing crime, using measures to support the police for which no new legislation is needed and recognising that the Conservative party can enjoy no credibility when the right hon. and learned Gentleman has reneged on a manifesto promise of an extra 1,000 on the police establishment this year by cutting it by 224 posts since the general election.
In common with the hon. Member for Canterbury, I spent an evening in a city centre and I was appalled at how thin is the thin blue line. The paperwork to which Conservative Members referred is certainly a contributory factor in drawing that line so thin.
Against that background, we must consider the dismal story of the CPS and the scandal of dropped prosecutions, which is letting down victims and the public. Fewer cases are going to court and more cases are discontinued. Throughout the country, police officers of every rank—from constables and sergeants to chief constables—have expressed to me over the past year their anger and frustration at being let down when the CPS fails to proceed with a prosecution. That frustration is causing enormous damage to public confidence as well as to police morale.
Ministers may say that the public interest has to be observed. Conservative Members have also expressed a reservation about the way in which the concept of public interest is being used or misused. They may say that a case should not go ahead where there is no chance of success. I wish that I could be confident that it is only in such circumstances that cases are dropped, but I do not believe that. I am now convinced that the pressure to drop cases to save money is too great. We know that managers and bureaucrats put pressure on lawyers in the Crown Prosecution Service to reduce charges against their better judgment. Pressure is specifically applied to convince lawyers to reduce all section 47 charges of causing actual bodily harm to charges of common assault. That pressure is distorting justice. Ministers must carry the can for that approach, and should promise the House to put a stop to it forthwith.
There is also a failure to obtain the practical effective liaison that is needed between the police and the CPS. References have been made to the organisation of the CPS. Its reorganisation on the basis of larger areas was wrong. It would have been far better for the service to be based on the areas of the court that it served and the boundaries of a single police authority. There would be much more direct accountability and co-operation between the two agencies in those circumstances. Such organisational issues need to be addressed. The last reorganisation was carried out with far too little thought—lines were drawn up on a central map rather than on the knowledge of the CPS and the police service on the ground.
Above all, there is a need to put the victim at the centre of the consideration of the CPS. I still feel unhappy about the case of one of my constituents, even after investigating all the circumstances. The son of my constituent was attacked in a bar and a glass was smashed into his face causing the loss of an eye. The attacker was identified and the file passed to the CPS for action. The prosecution decided to accept a guilty plea to a lower charge and drop the more serious charges, which meant that the evidence was not called. The family was shocked to hear a plea in mitigation that the young man had provoked the attack —a suggestion which had not previously been made. As evidence was not heard, the suggestion could not be challenged. I am sure that Conservative Members will share my distaste for such an occurrence, which is not unusual.
That case resulted in a relatively trivial sentence for an offence far less serious than the one originally framed, and a victim, family and witnesses who still feel frustrated and angry a considerable time after the event. They might have felt unhappy had the court heard all the evidence and reached that decision, but they feel cheated because the court had no chance to judge the evidence.
There are many ways in which the victim, the family and even the community can, on occasion, be made to feel that they have been treated as a marginal irrelevance in the prosecution process. That feeling is voiced by the police with worrying regularity and has been reflected in hon. Members' speeches in tonight's debate.
The system of prosecution is bureaucratic and slow whereas crime happens fast, is often nasty and creates victims who are then given inadequate consideration. That is why, this spring, I proposed an amendment to the Criminal Justice Act 1993 to put the victim at the centre of the process and to require the CPS to consult victims on the nature of the offences to be put. My amendment was particularly designed to require the CPS to consult the victims or nearest relatives before agreeing to downgrade or withdraw charges.
That proposal would not give the victim the power of veto, but the requirement to explain the decision to a victim and to the police would be a powerful means of ensuring that the events were properly assessed and that the victim's view was heard and properly considered. It was such a simple, fair and practical concept that I was amazed when the Government rejected it. That demonstrated the contempt of the Conservative party for victims when it has a chance to put matters right. Last week my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) made fresh proposals on the issue, and the Government would be well advised to accept them without further delay.
The Government are about to produce proposals on the scheme to compensate the victims of crime, which will result in considerable unfairness. They have not done enough to help victims through the victim support scheme, through witness support and through changing the ethos of the courts to show greater respect and consideration for the victims and witnesses.
The failure in prosecutions is only one part of a dismal picture—

Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the victim and about what should be done so that he feels that justice has been done. In many cases where attacks have been made on individuals, especially by persistent offenders, the victim might feel that such a person should


receive a custodial sentence. However, the hon. Gentleman and his party believe that the new prisons announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary should not be built. How does he square that with care for the victim?

Mr. Michael: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman has not been listening. We have criticised the Home Secretary's one-track approach. He believes that only prison works. He will drain the rest of the Home Office budget to put the money into prisons, the need for which is made greater by the Government's failure over the last few years to prevent and to tackle crime and to reduce the number of offenders who need prison sentences. The increase in the number of victims has arisen because of the Government's failure during recent years. It was one of the things that made me angry enough to stand for Parliament. The hon. Gentleman should study the history with some care before seeking to defend it.
I want to detail the facts of the one particular part of the picture with which we are dealing in this debate. In a year during which we have heard a great deal from the Home Secretary about crime, the number of cases coming to the Crown court continues to fall. Recorded crime has risen by 124 per cent. since the Conservative party came to power, yet in the year to April 1992 the number of cases received into the Crown court was 105,248 while in the year ended October 1992 it had fallen to just over 102,000, and by the year ended October 1993 was down to 87,164. Than is a drop of 17 per cent. in 18 months and a staggering drop of 15 per cent. in the last 12 months.
For more than six months, my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield has been demanding an inquiry into the reasons for the drop in the number of cases coming to court at a time of such a dramatic rise in crime. It is bizarre that the Government are unwilling to undertake such an inquiry or, better still, to recognise that Labour identified the problem long before the summer recess and offered practical ways forward that the Government should now accept. Similarly, the number of cases disposed of by the courts is showing a worrying decline—also down 17 per cent. in 18 months.
Our investigations also show the extent of the current crisis in the criminal justice system. I shall cite four particular facts. First, the number of cases coming to the magistrates court has actually fallen from 1,574,000 in 1988–89 to 1,530,000 last year. Secondly, the number of cases withdrawn or dismissed from magistrates courts has increased by 50 per cent. since 1987 while convictions have fallen by more than 40,000. Thirdly, the number of cases discontinued before they came to court has risen by 78 per cent. since 1987–88, yet delays are getting worse, with the average time for cases in the magistrates court to be completed up by 20 per cent. since 1986.
Those statistics are worrying and should have been enough to stir Ministers into action. However, I shall highlight one further problem. There is more than anecdotal evidence that charges are being downgraded just to keep them out of the Crown court. In one magistrates court in London, 75 per cent. of cases of actual bodily harm were downgraded to the lesser charge of common assault. However, when my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield asked the Attorney-General for the exact figures of cases being downgraded, they were not available. That, too, should be part of a general Government investigation.
The fact is that we know, even without more detailed information, that there is a real and growing problem. Too many offenders are laughing at the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General because their agents in the Crown Prosecution Service are driven by cost rather than justice.
Every time a case is dropped for convenience or cost, there is a danger that an offender will conclude that he can get away with it and he may offend again. On that point, I am at one with hon. Members who contributed earlier. The victim will feel let down and degraded, the police will feel let down, and, in truth, the public have a right to feel betrayed.
The victims and those involved in the fight against crime deserve better than that. The proper conclusion of tonight's debate would be a promise from the Attorney-General that he will investigate the failures of the system and the failings of the CPS, that he will bring the whole sorry business out for proper public scrutiny, and that he will change the constraints on the CPS to put the victims at centre stage and to ensure that fewer people get away with crimes, particularly crimes of violence, on grounds of bureaucratic convenience and cost-cutting.
As I have said, that promise will not solve all the problems, but it will be a start. The Government need to introduce a major package to restore confidence in the whole system, and there are many ways in which costs can be cut while the speed and quality of justice are improved.
The Opposition will continue to press for such improvements, and to help with positive suggestions and concrete proposals, but for tonight we shall be content if the Attorney-General promises to take a grip on the failings of policies and management in the CPS.
The survey published by the Association of First Division Civil Servants, which Ministers have attempted to brush aside, merely confirms what has been obvious for a long time—that Government policy and financial pressures are distorting justice by undermining the effectiveness of prosecutors. That is properly a subject of ministerial accountability, not just a question of administrative responsibility within the agency, and I urge the Attorney-General to give the House the promises that we need.

The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): First, join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on instituting this debate on an important subject which is highly topical, and rightly so. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on joining in, and I look forward to answering the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury made some critical remarks about the CPS, but I am grateful to him for not attacking individual Crown prosecutors. I wish to open the debate by explaining briefly to the House what a tough job the individual Crown prosecutors have, how well they do it and what strides the CPS and its Crown prosecutors, all 2,100 of them today, have made in recent years.
I have now been a Law Officer for six and half years and during that period I have visited the CPS throughout the country. As we know, it was understaffed and somewhat underfunded when it began its life and in those days there


were many young Crown prosecutors as well as much more experienced Crown prosecutors from the old county prosecuting service.
Today, as one visits the CPS in different parts—in the past few weeks I have visited the CPS in the west midlands and in the Reading area—one is met by highly experienced professional prosecutors, younger and older, doing an extremely tough job very effectively.
A Crown prosecutor can expect to arrive at a large multiple court with several courts running at the same time, day in, day out, carrying anything between 30 and 70 cases, and perhaps be divested, for the convenience of the court, of five or 10 of those cases, and have put into his hand to deal with professionally, straight away, three, four or five extra cases, which he has to pick up and take on the hoof, not because of any deficiency in the CPS but because we are dealing with busy courts operating busy and tight schedules. They are highly professional people and they deserve our thanks.
It is worth looking at the overall number of cases handled by the CPS, not just for statistics on discontinuance, to which I shall come in detail. The CPS receives about 1,500,000 cases each year, to be handled by 2,100 Crown prosecutors on behalf of 120,000 police officers, with just under 100,000 of those cases being dealt with in the Crown court, with all the preparation that that properly requires.
It should be remembered that the process of prosecution over the past 10 years has become significantly more complex, for reasons which we know and understand and of which we fundamentally approve. Advance disclosure to the defence requires preparation of statements so that they can be given in advance. Tape recording and the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 put burdens, with respect to the safeguarding of justice, on the police.
I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth that we should go back to a world in which there is no Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Prosecutors also have responsibility for making available unused material. That is the background of the highly professional service that we must now examine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury suggested, following the paper written by Mr. Christopher Frazer, entitled "Privatise the Prosecutors", that we should abandon the Crown Prosecution Service which has been so carefully built up in the past several years and go back to using the ordinary high street solicitor. I have a high regard for high street solicitors. I grew up in the world of quarter sessions. I think that that is the world to which all my hon. Friends hark back, but I must warn them against putting on rose-tinted spectacles. I honestly believe that the weight of prosecution today is too heavy for a system of that nature.
Although I have no doubt that the middle-ranking high street solicitor referred to by Mr. Frazer in his pamphlet would seek to do a gallant job, I beg to doubt whether it would be possible to run the service anything like as efficiently and effectively as it is run by the CPS under the direction and control of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mrs. Barbara Mills.

Mr. Brazier: Even if one were to concede all my right hon. and learned Friend's points, surely, given the training, the expertise and, inevitably, the cost of the people whom

he mentions, the CPS cannot be an appropriate body to deal with offences such as shoplifting, which could simply be dealt with, as they were in the old days, by policemen.

The Attorney-General: Yes, a simple shoplifting case was dealt with effectively by police officers. Some police officers and court inspectors became extremely experienced and effective prosecutors in their own right. However, I have just mentioned the weight and volume of cases that have to be not only dealt with in court but prepared. I invite my hon. Friend to go around either his local office of the Crown Prosecution Service or one of the larger offices in London to see exactly what we are talking about.
I must move on, because there are only 10 minutes before the end of the debate and I have some positive things to say to the House, to my hon. Friends and to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth about the subject of the debate. First, I wish to say a word about the origin of the Crown Prosecution Service and why it was put in place. The Crown Prosecution Service was established by the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and became fully operational in October 1986. Its creation was the result of recommendations made in 1981 by the Philips Royal Commission on criminal procedure. That royal commission found that prosecution arrangements across the country were haphazard. It criticised the lack of any consistent prosecution policy and the lack of an independent element in the prosecution process.
With the exception of the Director of Public Prosecutions, prosecutors worked in a solicitor-client relationship with the police. The royal commission found that too many weak cases were being prosecuted and that there was an attendant risk of miscarriages of justice occurring. Like the recent Runciman Royal Commission on criminal justice, the Philips royal commission followed a serious miscarriage of justice that arose from the death of Maxwell Confait and the wrongful conviction of three young men for homicide. The case had to be investigated a number of times, and I remember that when I became a Member it was very much in our minds. That is the background to the establishment of the Crown Prosecution Service.
I want to move straight on to the key topics of the debate and put before the House the announcements that I must make. The key topics focus on discontinuance. We are all aware that the number of discontinued cases has increased, but hon. Members must recall that the CPS was established to review cases. It is neither surprising nor wrong, therefore, that a significant proportion of the cases that it reviews will be weeded out. It may be significant, although almost anything can be done with statistics, that the number of cases dismissed in magistrates courts has remained fairly static in recent years. I do not want to put too much weight on any statistic, but it may be that a significant proportion of discontinued cases are rightly discontinued.
I have personally looked into some individual cases. If a case worries hon. Members, they should bring it to me or to the Director of Public Prosecutions and it will be looked into. I have looked into a large number of cases. Nevertheless, I recognise that there is a problem. The CPS does not set out to discontinue cases unreasonably. It aims to ensure that the right cases get to court and to avoid unfairness to defendants. Initiating a case unnecessarily is


a very invasive process, with all the worry that it causes victims and the wasting of court time. We want to bring cases that can be carried to conviction.
In November 1993—this takes up what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said—a study of all cases discontinued that month was conducted at the behest of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was designed to obtain as much information as possible on the reasons for discontinuance. That statistical study is being analysed and I will inform the House, probably in the new year, of such results as one can draw from it.
The Director of Public Prosecutions has put in place a new structure designed to monitor the quality of prosecution decisions throughout the country. As the House knows, the CPS is now divided into 13 areas. In each area, under a national director of casework, an assistant chief Crown prosecutor is charged expressly with monitoring standards of discontinuance and with organising training for Crown prosecutors in this important matter.
The second announcement that I wish to make—and this is new—is in relation to the code for Crown prosecutors. At the heart of the code are the requirements, first, that before a prosecution is brought there must be a sufficiency of evidence to give a realistic prospect of conviction and, secondly, that the prosecution, which normally can be expected to follow if there is a sufficiency of evidence, should be in the public interest. That code is to be reviewed, and the aim of the review will be to simplify the language of the code and to put it into plain English to make it a document more easily understood by police officers and members of the public who are not lawyers. That is to be widely welcomed. The DPP is confident that the fundamental principles of the code remain sound, but she believes—and I believe—that the evidential criterion and the requirement for a realistic prospect of conviction can be clarified and that the public interest factors in favour of a prosecution can be brought out more clearly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth will not, I hope, take it amiss if I remind him and the House that through the decades—down the centuries, almost—those two criteria have been an essential part of any prosecution decision. I refer him to the classic statement by one of my predecessors, Sir Hartley Shawcross, about the fact that one takes into account not only the evidential sufficiency but the public interest. Of course, it can be taken at a simple, domestic level.
We all remember the tragic case of Lady Isobel Barnet who, sadly, became a kleptomaniac and was prosecuted for shoplifting, for reasons of illness. She killed herself. It is not in the public interest to prosecute every elderly and infirm person who commits an offence. At the other end of the spectrum, prosecutions can be discontinued in the public interest for reasons of the greatest national security. My predecessor rightly answered questions in the House about that, and I should be willing to do so.
I have only a minute left, but I want to mention victims. The CPS is intensely aware of its duty to victims. When a case is reviewed, it is our objective that the reason for the review and any potential discontinuance is not restricted to the Crown prosecutor but is fed not only to police headquarters but, through the police's administration support unit, to the officer on the beat dealing with the case so that the victim can be informed and consulted. The DPP was speaking about this issue only last weekend at the

Lamplugh Trust seminar at the same time as the shadow Home Secretary. She has been taking the lead for a considerable time—

In accordance with Mr. Speaker's ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.

Mr John Marshall: I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.

Notice being taken that strangers were present, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Nick Raynsford: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that there are no strangers present, and I question the appropriateness of a Division being called on this issue.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): My recollection is that, at the time, one or two people were present.

Mr. Raynsford: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When you called the Division, there was no stranger present in the Gallery.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Whether that is the case or not, I have no discretion, provided the procedures are followed.

The House having divided: Ayes Nil, Noes 2.

Ms Liz Lynne: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. While I am on my feet, I do not expect to take points of order.

It appearing on the report of the Division that fewer than 40 Members had taken part in the Division, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next sitting of the House.

Ms Lynne: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to call "I spy strangers" when apparently there are no strangers in the Gallery?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair has no discretion in putting the Question. I understand that it is a matter of dispute as to whether there were strangers. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Sedgemore: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Effectively, the business of the House has been brought to a close by an "I spy strangers" by an hon.


Member who has neither charm, dignity nor sense. Indeed, he has shown contempt for Londoners, who were about to hear a debate on London's transport, contempt for the House of Commons and contempt for the parliamentary process. I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will express concern about public schoolboys playing such silly games.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. I observe only that I had to undergo the same procedure last Friday morning.

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Six o'clock.